From joao at ripe.net Tue Apr 11 20:45:17 2000 From: joao at ripe.net (Joao Luis Silva Damas) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 20:45:17 +0200 (CEST) Subject: RIPE hostmasters visiting LIRs Message-ID: Dear all, I believe this thread never really came to an end. We have been thinking long about how to address the distance that is perceived as separating the RIPE NCC registration services from everyday operations of ISPs. We have considered the proposed idea of having RIPE NCC hostmasters visiting ISPs to get in touch with their daily operations and needs. The preceding mails have raised the issues of how to select the LIRs to be visited, the finance implications of having the hostmasters travel to these ISP locations, the potential danger of lobbying and whether those visits should be used as a mechanism for helping ISPs in auditing processes. To these, I would like to add the potential disruptions to operations that these visits may have for the Registration Services department. Now, financial issues could definitely be resolved in agreement with the membership. The potential for lobbying is a worrisome prospect, not because I fear that anyone would actually even think about it, but because should any allegations be raised it would be difficult to prove them wrong and in any case a certain damage would have been done. Mainly because of this, I would rather not have RIPE NCC hostmasters visit individual members. However, we do acknowledge the need for hostmasters to be more up to date with developments in the industry and the fact that it would be very benefitial to increase awareness of daily ISP operations within Registration Services. To address this, and some other internal issues, we will be hiring for a new position within the RIPE NCC with the specific function of providing internal technical advise and training that will enable us to better track developments and be more familiar with everyday operations. This person, will not be routinely involved in the handling of member address requests and might be a good candidate to visit a few LIRs selected randomly from different "pools" (big, small, different economic and regulatory environments,...) in the future. I believe this solution can effectively address the concerns raised by this discussion while minimizing the drawbacks of the solutions proposed so far and also has other benefits for the RIPE NCC. Hope to hear from you, Joao Damas Head of external services RIPE NCC From stephenb at uk.uu.net Wed Apr 12 10:02:48 2000 From: stephenb at uk.uu.net (Stephen Burley) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 08:02:48 +0000 Subject: RIPE hostmasters visiting LIRs References: Message-ID: <38F42DA8.6015789D@uk.uu.net> Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote: > Dear all, > > I believe this thread never really came to an end. > > We have been thinking long about how to address the distance that is > perceived > as separating the RIPE NCC registration services from everyday > operations of ISPs. > > We have considered the proposed idea of having RIPE NCC hostmasters > visiting ISPs to get in touch with their daily operations and needs. > > The preceding mails have raised the issues of how to select the LIRs to be > visited, the finance implications of having the hostmasters travel to > these ISP locations, the potential danger of lobbying and whether those > visits should be used as a mechanism for helping ISPs in auditing > processes. > > To these, I would like to add the potential disruptions to > operations that these visits may have for the Registration Services > department. > > Now, financial issues could definitely be resolved in agreement with the > membership. > > The potential for lobbying is a worrisome prospect, not because I fear > that > anyone would actually even think about it, but because should any > allegations be raised it would be difficult to prove them wrong and in any > case a certain damage would have been done. > > Mainly because of this, I would rather not have RIPE NCC hostmasters visit > individual members. > > However, we do acknowledge the need for hostmasters to be more up to date > with > developments in the industry and the fact that it would be very benefitial > to increase awareness of daily ISP operations within Registration > Services. > > To address this, and some other internal issues, we will be hiring for a > new position within the RIPE NCC > with the specific function of providing internal technical advise and > training that will enable us to better track developments and be more > familiar with everyday operations. So although this looks like a change in thought its not really, as this means one person in the NCC will be more clued up as to practices and needs within the ISP world and even have a vast experience of many environments, but they will not be doing and hostmaster work which was the whole point of this proposal. This proposal was designed to give the experience and feel of working in a very competitive world and dealing with customers preconceptions of what the internet is. This proposal goes no further than wasting our money on a new position within the NCC with no more real gains other than technical knowledge increase which can be done by reading the ISP/telco trade journals. What is the difference from a hostmaster being accused of coercion or this new persons position still the same perceived problem. The RIPE NCC is their to because the RIPE community wishes it and the RIPE NCC up hold policy as set out by RIPE and as far as i see it there was a consensus that this initial proposal was a good idea, but the NCC thought otherwise who is dictating policy here? > > > This person, will not be routinely involved in the handling of member > address requests and might be a good candidate to visit a few LIRs > selected > randomly from different "pools" (big, small, different economic > and regulatory environments,...) in the future. > > I believe this solution can effectively address the concerns raised by > this > discussion while minimizing the drawbacks of the solutions proposed so far > and also has other benefits for the RIPE NCC. > > Hope to hear from you, > Joao Damas > Head of external services > RIPE NCC From joao at ripe.net Wed Apr 12 12:37:02 2000 From: joao at ripe.net (Joao Luis Silva Damas) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 12:37:02 +0200 (CEST) Subject: RIPE hostmasters visiting LIRs In-Reply-To: <38F42DA8.6015789D@uk.uu.net> Message-ID: Hi stephen, I am sorry you see it that way. *** We are not dictating anything here *** We need someone with the profile I described earlier to keep up to date with developments that affect hostmaster work and that is able to communicate that information to the hostmasters for use in their daily work dealing woth ISPs. This is a hard requirement for us to be able to provide a good service to all of you. Yes, we could have everyone reading all the trade journals, however doing that through proper training is more effective and saves your money. What my mail was proposing was to also use this person to get closer contact with ISPs, while not having the hostmasters themselves having to travel to the ISPs. I understood that the idea was to get the knowledge about your daily life to the hostmasters. If this person is able to communicate that, then what is the difference between having the hostmasters going there in person or someone communicating things to them? From my perspective the main one is the disruption for daily work at the NCC that sending people out every so often can have which affects the time you have to wait to get a reply back from us. Quoting my previous mail: "I hope to hear from you" and I still do. Joao On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Stephen Burley wrote: > Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > I believe this thread never really came to an end. > > > > We have been thinking long about how to address the distance that is > > perceived > > as separating the RIPE NCC registration services from everyday > > operations of ISPs. > > > > We have considered the proposed idea of having RIPE NCC hostmasters > > visiting ISPs to get in touch with their daily operations and needs. > > > > The preceding mails have raised the issues of how to select the LIRs to be > > visited, the finance implications of having the hostmasters travel to > > these ISP locations, the potential danger of lobbying and whether those > > visits should be used as a mechanism for helping ISPs in auditing > > processes. > > > > To these, I would like to add the potential disruptions to > > operations that these visits may have for the Registration Services > > department. > > > > Now, financial issues could definitely be resolved in agreement with the > > membership. > > > > The potential for lobbying is a worrisome prospect, not because I fear > > that > > anyone would actually even think about it, but because should any > > allegations be raised it would be difficult to prove them wrong and in any > > case a certain damage would have been done. > > > > Mainly because of this, I would rather not have RIPE NCC hostmasters visit > > individual members. > > > > However, we do acknowledge the need for hostmasters to be more up to date > > with > > developments in the industry and the fact that it would be very benefitial > > to increase awareness of daily ISP operations within Registration > > Services. > > > > To address this, and some other internal issues, we will be hiring for a > > new position within the RIPE NCC > > with the specific function of providing internal technical advise and > > training that will enable us to better track developments and be more > > familiar with everyday operations. > > So although this looks like a change in thought its not really, as this means > one person in the NCC will be more clued up as to practices and needs within > the ISP world and even have a vast experience of many environments, but they > will not be doing and hostmaster work which was the whole point of this > proposal. This proposal was designed to give the experience and feel of > working in a very competitive world and dealing with customers preconceptions > of what the internet is. This proposal goes no further than wasting our money > on a new position within the NCC with no more real gains other than technical > knowledge increase which can be done by reading the ISP/telco trade journals. > What is the difference from a hostmaster being accused of coercion or this > new persons position still the same perceived problem. > > The RIPE NCC is their to because the RIPE community wishes it and the RIPE > NCC up hold policy as set out by RIPE and as far as i see it there was a > consensus that this initial proposal was a good idea, but the NCC thought > otherwise who is dictating policy here? > > > > > > > > This person, will not be routinely involved in the handling of member > > address requests and might be a good candidate to visit a few LIRs > > selected > > randomly from different "pools" (big, small, different economic > > and regulatory environments,...) in the future. > > > > I believe this solution can effectively address the concerns raised by > > this > > discussion while minimizing the drawbacks of the solutions proposed so far > > and also has other benefits for the RIPE NCC. > > > > Hope to hear from you, > > Joao Damas > > Head of external services > > RIPE NCC > > From stephenb at uk.uu.net Wed Apr 12 13:27:41 2000 From: stephenb at uk.uu.net (Stephen Burley) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 11:27:41 +0000 Subject: RIPE hostmasters visiting LIRs References: Message-ID: <38F45DAD.7E876C8C@uk.uu.net> Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote: > Hi stephen, > > I am sorry you see it that way. > > *** We are not dictating anything here *** Yes you are we had concensus that the original proposal was good but you the NCC has turned its nose up at RIPE's request and come up with another alternative which did not have concensus. To summerise: Propsal made Discussion ensued General agreement made but needing further work NCC rejected ideas NCC requested a formal proposal from Sam Proposal made Little discussion again general consensus made Many requests for a response from NCC NCC reject propsal and come up with alternative not discussed Current discussion. So the NCC is not working for RIPE we are now subject to the NCC concensus before action is made not what your website states: "The RIPE NCC performs activities primarily for the benefit of the membership in Europe and the surrounding areas; mainly activities that its members need to organise as a group, even though they may compete in other areas." and the RIPE NCC Charter: The RIPE Network Coordination Centre (NCC) provides services to european internet service providers. It supports all the RIPE activities which cannot be effectively performed by individual volunteers. The activities include: The NCC is there for our benifit not the other way round. > > > We need someone with the profile I described earlier to keep up to date > with developments that affect hostmaster work and that is able to > communicate that information to the hostmasters for use in their daily > work dealing woth ISPs. This is a hard requirement for us to be able to > provide a good service to all of you. What are the hostmasters doing answering our requests if they are not already up to date, this is a seperate issue and is clouding the original suggestion. > > > Yes, we could have everyone reading all the trade journals, however doing > that through proper training is more effective and saves your money. No it does not, as hostmasters you should be keeping abreast of all the developments, i would like to see more spent on getting the unacceptable wait que brought down and employing of real technical staff if you are saying that the staff is not technical. > > > What my mail was proposing was to also use this person to get closer > contact with ISPs, while not having the hostmasters themselves having to > travel to the ISPs. We do not want a person getting closer to ISP's we want the hostmaster team to gain some expirience in the real world. > > > I understood that the idea was to get the knowledge about your daily life > to the hostmasters. If this person is able to communicate that, then what > is the difference between having the hostmasters going there in person or > someone communicating things to them? You can not communicate experience unless this person is a member of the vulcan race and is capable of mind melding, its not info we want communicating . > From my perspective the main one is > the disruption for daily work at the NCC that sending people out every so > often can have which affects the time you have to wait to get a reply back > from us. It is already disrupted when the RIPE meetings happen and we put up with it. If it is for the good of all and is communicated properly then i am sure RIPE will tolerate it as was already agreed at the RIPE meeting. > > > Quoting my previous mail: "I hope to hear from you" and I still do. > > Joao > > On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Stephen Burley wrote: > > > Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote: > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > I believe this thread never really came to an end. > > > > > > We have been thinking long about how to address the distance that is > > > perceived > > > as separating the RIPE NCC registration services from everyday > > > operations of ISPs. > > > > > > We have considered the proposed idea of having RIPE NCC hostmasters > > > visiting ISPs to get in touch with their daily operations and needs. > > > > > > The preceding mails have raised the issues of how to select the LIRs to be > > > visited, the finance implications of having the hostmasters travel to > > > these ISP locations, the potential danger of lobbying and whether those > > > visits should be used as a mechanism for helping ISPs in auditing > > > processes. > > > > > > To these, I would like to add the potential disruptions to > > > operations that these visits may have for the Registration Services > > > department. > > > > > > Now, financial issues could definitely be resolved in agreement with the > > > membership. > > > > > > The potential for lobbying is a worrisome prospect, not because I fear > > > that > > > anyone would actually even think about it, but because should any > > > allegations be raised it would be difficult to prove them wrong and in any > > > case a certain damage would have been done. > > > > > > Mainly because of this, I would rather not have RIPE NCC hostmasters visit > > > individual members. > > > > > > However, we do acknowledge the need for hostmasters to be more up to date > > > with > > > developments in the industry and the fact that it would be very benefitial > > > to increase awareness of daily ISP operations within Registration > > > Services. > > > > > > To address this, and some other internal issues, we will be hiring for a > > > new position within the RIPE NCC > > > with the specific function of providing internal technical advise and > > > training that will enable us to better track developments and be more > > > familiar with everyday operations. > > > > So although this looks like a change in thought its not really, as this means > > one person in the NCC will be more clued up as to practices and needs within > > the ISP world and even have a vast experience of many environments, but they > > will not be doing and hostmaster work which was the whole point of this > > proposal. This proposal was designed to give the experience and feel of > > working in a very competitive world and dealing with customers preconceptions > > of what the internet is. This proposal goes no further than wasting our money > > on a new position within the NCC with no more real gains other than technical > > knowledge increase which can be done by reading the ISP/telco trade journals. > > What is the difference from a hostmaster being accused of coercion or this > > new persons position still the same perceived problem. > > > > The RIPE NCC is their to because the RIPE community wishes it and the RIPE > > NCC up hold policy as set out by RIPE and as far as i see it there was a > > consensus that this initial proposal was a good idea, but the NCC thought > > otherwise who is dictating policy here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > This person, will not be routinely involved in the handling of member > > > address requests and might be a good candidate to visit a few LIRs > > > selected > > > randomly from different "pools" (big, small, different economic > > > and regulatory environments,...) in the future. > > > > > > I believe this solution can effectively address the concerns raised by > > > this > > > discussion while minimizing the drawbacks of the solutions proposed so far > > > and also has other benefits for the RIPE NCC. > > > > > > Hope to hear from you, > > > Joao Damas > > > Head of external services > > > RIPE NCC > > > > From stephenb at uk.uu.net Wed Apr 12 15:20:58 2000 From: stephenb at uk.uu.net (Stephen Burley) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:20:58 +0000 Subject: Related topic - Hostmasters visiting LIRS Message-ID: <38F4783A.2C03E377@uk.uu.net> Hi After reading and thinking about what has been said and what has more pointedly not been said i would like the answers to a few questions: 1. What are the qualifications looked for in a hostmaster? 2. What training program is in place to make sure all are kept up to date with new developments from the ISP/Telco industry (ie cisco courses etc.) 3. What incentives are in place to encourage hostmasters to increase their knowledge? These are serious questions which deserve a careful answer. Regards Stephen Burley UUNET EMEA Hostmaster From stephenb at uk.uu.net Thu Apr 13 10:55:00 2000 From: stephenb at uk.uu.net (Stephen Burley) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 08:55:00 +0000 Subject: Further to the training questions Message-ID: <38F58B64.EADFD38D@uk.uu.net> Hi The lack of response worries me to my questions about training i therefore would like to request some changes to a few things. 1. Since the RIPE NCC members are basically funding the education policy, (to which you have a documented policy)it would be in the best interest of the community if we were informed yearly of : a)What courses were suggested by hostmaster and other personel. b)which courses were rejected and on what grounds. c)which courses were completed and any certification recieved. Also what incentives are offered to hostmasters as rewards for furthering there "Internet" knowledge. Our hostmasters are our most valuable asset in the NCC, if we do not look after them and keep the m up to date it is only us that suffer, with this in mind i would like to see the above in place. I would also like to see this information for the last 3 years. 2. To relieve the stress on the wait que i would like to see a standard a min ssignment window applied to all none new LIR's, something not too small but something not too large say a /25 - this means that the hostmasters would not be boged down with small insignificant requests and would be able to concentrate on answering the larger requests thus getting used to larger business needs. Regards, Stephen Burley UUNET EMEA Hostmaster From neil at COLT.NET Thu Apr 13 12:11:05 2000 From: neil at COLT.NET (Neil J. McRae) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:11:05 +0100 Subject: Further to the training questions In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 13 Apr 2000 08:55:00 -0000." <38F58B64.EADFD38D@uk.uu.net> Message-ID: <200004131011.LAA17621@NetBSD.noc.COLT.NET> On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 08:55:00 +0000 Stephen Burley wrote: > 2. To relieve the stress on the wait que i would like to see a standard > a min ssignment window applied to all none new LIR's, something not too > small but something not too large say a /25 - this means that the > hostmasters would not be boged down with small insignificant requests > and would be able to concentrate on answering the larger requests thus > getting used to larger business needs. I would not like to see this, I think that it is vital that there is no assignment window to new registries. Although I think that if new registries are being managed by exeprienced people who have demonstrated their understanding of the procedures then they should be given an assignment window. So if you left UUNET to setup stephenswarez.com and opened up an LIR you would not have to go through the zero assignment window issues again. Stephen - as you have so many interesting ideas and questions perhaps you could post what UUNET offer as incentives to their hostmaster people in terms of the questions that you posed in your mail, this could help educate the NCC into deploying courses that you, and I'm sure others, felt were appropriate. Perhaps you could vounteer to setup a training work group? Regards, Neil. -- Neil J. McRae C O L T I N T E R N E T neil at COLT.NET "In this world there's two kinds of people my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig?" From Dan.Lyon at uk.uu.net Thu Apr 13 13:06:19 2000 From: Dan.Lyon at uk.uu.net (Dan Lyon) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:06:19 +0100 Subject: Further to the training questions Message-ID: Neil, Perhaps I am better placed to answer this one than Stephen is. He is our EMEA hostmaster, but I am heavily involved in the setup of new countries for UUNET, therefore understand the structure and requirements for staff from day one. Let me set the scene.... We have a central installs team in Amsterdam. They are responsible for the local installs teams in each country we roll out. It is the install engineers that perform the hostmaster function of working the 141's and checking and vetting that customer applications are valid, correctly formatted, logical, and make correct use of technology. When we set up a new registry, as we start up a new country, the install team in Amsterdam will perform the hostmaster function for the new country in the early stages. They are backed up by Stephen (EMEA Hostmaster) at all times. The typical level of qualification of the install engineers in Amsterdam is: Good technology background. ICRC/ACRC Cisco trained. Hands on experience. Have attended the RIPE LIR course. Good internet knowledge. Good technology knowledge to know when customers are using IP space inefficiently. As staff are brought on board in each new country/registry, they will go through all these courses to make sure that they understand what they are doing. They will also spend an extended period with the install team in Amsterdam making sure they have sufficient experience and skills to do their job well. Once there are staff on the ground in a country that have been trained, they are still required to pass all 141's thru the team in Amsterdam and the EMEA hostmaster, until such time as the team in Amsterdam and the EMEA hostmaster feel that the country can stand on it's own. Only then are they allowed to pass requests direct to the RIPE NCC and even then, all large/unusual requests are handled by the EMEA hostmaster directly. Incentives are difficult to quantify, as we do not have "hostmasters" per say, more skilled engineers that incorporate the hostmaster function as part of their job description. All IE's are encouraged to have a keen interest in technology, and are offered full access to UUNET internal and external training programmes, covering many technological aspects as well as personal development concepts. All courses are 100 percent paid for by UUNET, and I am yet to hear of any member of staff that has had a training request turned down. Regular updates of the courses that are available in the coming months are circulated to *all* employees by e-mail. Management encourages the engineers to expand on weaknesses in the skills set, and promotes timely and fruitful training that helps the engineers keep on top of the rapidly changing technology used in the ISP industry. There are the usual incentives of pay etc. etc. plus where required the option to travel to a country and spend time assisting the install staff in that country with their peronsal and team development. Hope that helps answer your request. If you want to know anything more (within reason) just ask!! Cheers Dan. -- Dan Lyon -- Project Manager EMEA Operations UUNET, 330 The Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WQ Voice : +44(0)1223 581008 Fax: +44(0)1223 250373 e-mail : daniell at uk.uu.net -- UUNET - An MCI Worldcom Company > -----Original Message----- > From: Neil J. McRae [mailto:neil at COLT.NET] > Sent: 13 April 2000 11:11 > To: Stephen Burley > Cc: lir-wg at ripe.net; Neil J. McRae > Subject: Re: Further to the training questions > > > On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 08:55:00 +0000 > Stephen Burley wrote: > > > 2. To relieve the stress on the wait que i would like to > see a standard > > a min ssignment window applied to all none new LIR's, > something not too > > small but something not too large say a /25 - this means that the > > hostmasters would not be boged down with small > insignificant requests > > and would be able to concentrate on answering the larger > requests thus > > getting used to larger business needs. > > I would not like to see this, I think that it is vital that > there is no assignment window to new registries. Although I think > that if new registries are being managed by exeprienced people > who have demonstrated their understanding of the procedures > then they should be given an assignment window. So if you left > UUNET to setup stephenswarez.com and opened up an LIR > you would not have to go through the zero assignment window > issues again. > > Stephen - as you have so many interesting ideas and questions > perhaps you could post what UUNET offer as incentives to their > hostmaster people in terms of the questions that you posed in your > mail, this could help educate the NCC into deploying courses that > you, and I'm sure others, felt were appropriate. Perhaps you could > vounteer to setup a training work group? > > Regards, > Neil. > -- > Neil J. McRae C O L T I N T E R N E T > neil at COLT.NET "In this world there's two kinds of people my friend: > Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig?" > > > From neil at COLT.NET Thu Apr 13 13:40:20 2000 From: neil at COLT.NET (Neil J. McRae) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:40:20 +0100 Subject: Further to the training questions In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:06:19 BST." Message-ID: <200004131140.MAA18218@NetBSD.noc.COLT.NET> On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:06:19 +0100 Dan Lyon wrote: > The typical level of qualification of the install engineers in Amsterdam is: > > Good technology background. > ICRC/ACRC Cisco trained. > Hands on experience. > Have attended the RIPE LIR course. > Good internet knowledge. > Good technology knowledge to know when customers are using IP space > inefficiently. Perhaps someone from the NCC could comment on how appropriate or not this is for their staff? I'd add to the above strong communication and time management skills. > Hope that helps answer your request. Dan thanks - the point I'm trying to make is that UUNET [and probably a million other ISPs] have already built suitable programs that could be used by the RIPE NCC for the benefit of the RIPE community. So rather than ask questions and try to micro manage - we should offer our viewpoints and lead by example. Regards, Neil. -- Neil J. McRae C O L T I N T E R N E T neil at COLT.NET "In this world there's two kinds of people my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig?" From Dan.Lyon at uk.uu.net Thu Apr 13 13:46:01 2000 From: Dan.Lyon at uk.uu.net (Dan Lyon) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:46:01 +0100 Subject: Further to the training questions Message-ID: Neil, > Perhaps someone from the NCC could comment on how appropriate or > not this is for their staff? I'd add to the above strong > communication and time management skills. Agreed. And the points you raise are general requirements......as with any customer facing role. > > Hope that helps answer your request. > > Dan thanks - the point I'm trying to make is that UUNET [and probably > a million other ISPs] have already built suitable programs that > could be used by the RIPE NCC for the benefit of the RIPE community. > So rather than ask questions and try to micro manage - we > should offer > our viewpoints and lead by example. Totally agreed. Cheers Dan. -- Dan Lyon -- Project Manager EMEA Operations UUNET, 330 The Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WQ Voice : +44(0)1223 581008 Fax: +44(0)1223 250373 e-mail : daniell at uk.uu.net -- UUNET - An MCI Worldcom Company From dvella at melitacable.com Thu Apr 13 17:28:37 2000 From: dvella at melitacable.com (Duncan Vella) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 17:28:37 +0200 Subject: Further to the training questions In-Reply-To: <38F58B64.EADFD38D@uk.uu.net> Message-ID: <004c01bfa55c$f0609920$d68138d4@melitacable.com> Regarding point number 2 and min. assignment windows. I've been taking care of RIPE issues for the past 4 years. First 2 years with another LIR and for the last 2 with the present LIR. When I was with the first LIR, my min assign. window was a /24. When I changed work, I applied for the company to be a LIR and obviously had a starting min ass of 0. After a number of assignments my the min ass. win was put to /28. I've made numerous number of /29s and /28s together with some /25s. I've also attended the RIPE training course and thus know how important taking care of IP is. To stop the waiting queue of over 1 week, I asked for my assign. window to be increased to a /24 or at least /25. The response I got was that I first have to apply for three of /24s (or above!) for the assign. win to change. The point is that when a new hostmaster comes along, she/he correctly and strickly sticks to RIPE's policies. I feel that the customer/client relationship is lost when this happens. One particular assignment of a /22 and /23 was accepted without any problems with a particular hostmaster because this hostmaster knew that I knew the policies and had previously accepted my other requests. But my last /25 request was handled by a new hostmaster and it took many e-mail and complaints before it was accepted. And to make it worse, I was returning a /23 and renumbering with a /25!!!! Maybe RIPE should not give a min assign. win of /25 as standard. I think that RIPE have to know that the LIRs know their policies well before. RIPE should be aware of the LIRs and have a file indicating possible IP wastage, continous good assignments etc. Do other LIRs experience this?? In the meantime I'm still on an assign. win of /28 :( Regards, Duncan Vella Melita Cable plc > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-lir-wg at ripe.net [mailto:owner-lir-wg at ripe.net]On Behalf Of > Stephen Burley > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 10:55 AM > To: lir-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Further to the training questions > > > Hi > The lack of response worries me to my questions about training i > therefore would like to request some changes to a few things. > > 1. Since the RIPE NCC members are basically funding the education > policy, (to which you have a documented policy)it would be in the best > interest of the community if we were informed yearly of : > a)What courses were suggested by hostmaster and other personel. > b)which courses were rejected and on what grounds. > c)which courses were completed and any certification recieved. > Also what incentives are offered to hostmasters as rewards for > furthering there "Internet" knowledge. > > Our hostmasters are our most valuable asset in the NCC, if we do not > look after them and keep the m up to date it is only us that suffer, > with this in mind i would like to see the above in place. I would also > like to see this information for the last 3 years. > > 2. To relieve the stress on the wait que i would like to see a standard > a min ssignment window applied to all none new LIR's, something not too > small but something not too large say a /25 - this means that the > hostmasters would not be boged down with small insignificant requests > and would be able to concentrate on answering the larger requests thus > getting used to larger business needs. > > Regards, > Stephen Burley > UUNET EMEA Hostmaster > > > From cor at xs4all.net Thu Apr 13 18:59:47 2000 From: cor at xs4all.net (Cor Bosman) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 18:59:47 +0200 Subject: Further to the training questions In-Reply-To: <004c01bfa55c$f0609920$d68138d4@melitacable.com>; from dvella@melitacable.com on Thu, Apr 13, 2000 at 05:28:37PM +0200 References: <38F58B64.EADFD38D@uk.uu.net> <004c01bfa55c$f0609920$d68138d4@melitacable.com> Message-ID: <20000413185946.E27380@xs4all.nl> Hi, > Do other LIRs experience this?? The waitqueue is indeed very long. My last assignment request (admittedly large) got its first response 9 days after it was sent to a hostmaster from the wait queue.. Next response was 5 days later. Eventually it was approved 16 or 17 days after the initial request. Now, I realise the request wasnt standard, but it's a bit long :) (i dont blame the hostmaster in question btw!). What I wonder is if it takes this long because way too much effort is put into reviewing and replying to very small assignments. Say 75% of the hostmaster capacity is spent on assignments smaller than a /28. This means 8 or so hostmasters are on average working on these small assignments. Total costs for those 8 hostmasters are thus very large (probably more than 500000 Euro). Then I would not find it strange if we would discuss initial assignment windows, and growth in assignment windows in the LIR wg. If we could drop 75%, or hell, even 25% of the hostmaster load by being a little bit less strict in assignment windows (which to me is _not_ equal to wasting IP space), then this should be a subject of discussion. It would be in any commercial organisation :) The number are most likely not correct, but what Id like to see sometime are the actual figures. These numbers are necessary for the LIR wg to decide on policy, because they are, and if not, should be, linked. Numbers of interest are for instance: - amount of hostmasters - amount of tickets done per day - amount of initial tickets - amount of followup tickets - amount of closed tickets - amount of time spent per ticket - average response time per initial ticket - average response time per followup ticket - distribution of size of assignments - time spent on each size of assignment. - average assignment window - average time after change from no assignment window to first assignment window These numbers are not very different from what we ask of our helpdesk employees. I know some of these are already made, but I just mention them for completeness. Things you can then find out are for instance: - if the amount of closed tickets continues to be lower than the amount of new tickets, then we should worry shouldnt we? - if time spent per ticket is X, how much time/effort/money should be put into making sure it is less than X. And this is where Stephen's remarks probably come into the discussion. X could probably be lowered a lot with training. I at least have the impression that not very much effort is put into lowering X, and the effort that is being put in is simply hiring more hostmasters. Which unfortunately increases our bill :) - Will changes in assignment window policy dramatically lower the wait queue and costs? * should initial assignment window be set? * should we increase the assignment window more quickly? * should we base assignment windows on people too? Like UUnet, we have 2 LIRs, with the same hostmasters doing the tickets, one has a /23 assignment window, the other /28 or so. This seems like a quick win situation in lessening the load on the hostmasters. I dont have the answer to all these questions ofcourse, but at first glance I see a lot of room for improvement. - what are the main reasons for followup replies on assignment requests. if some main reasons can be found, we could look at improving this. Say every new request generates 4 followups, and we can lower this to 2 follow ups, we save 40% in email load. Assuming most effort is put into 1 of the 5 replies, you can probably still save 20 to 30% in resources. Saving 20% of hostmaster resources translates directly into a lower bill. Not all of the above issues are things the LIR should discuss (like someone said, it'd be micromanagement). But Id like to see reports on it. And id like to see improvements being carried out. And some of the numbers are imho essential to forming policy. I would gladly bring about a policy to increase assignment windows to LIRs with a 'proven' track record, if that would dramatically lower the wait queue and costs and increases efficiency. And 'proven' could be something to discuss in a LIR wg meeting. Regards, Cor Bosman From netmaster at space.net Thu Apr 13 17:51:49 2000 From: netmaster at space.net (Gert Doering, Netmaster) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 17:51:49 +0200 Subject: Further to the training questions In-Reply-To: <004c01bfa55c$f0609920$d68138d4@melitacable.com>; from dvella@melitacable.com on Thu, Apr 13, 2000 at 05:28:37PM +0200 References: <38F58B64.EADFD38D@uk.uu.net> <004c01bfa55c$f0609920$d68138d4@melitacable.com> Message-ID: <20000413175149.H2836@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Apr 13, 2000 at 05:28:37PM +0200, Duncan Vella wrote: > To stop the waiting queue of over 1 week, I asked for my assign. > window to be increased to a /24 or at least /25. The response > I got was that I first have to apply for three of /24s (or above!) > for the assign. win to change. Documentation of the policies for AW changes would be a very good thing to have. We have a /24 right now, I asked for an increase to /23 some years ago, was told "you have to successfully apply for a number of large requests", which I have done in the mean time, but the AW stayed the same... Not that I mind too much - most (>95%) of our assignments are /26 or smaller, and only very rarely a larger one than /24 happens, but in that case it would be nice to be able to react more quickly... [..] > And to make it worse, I was returning a /23 and renumbering with a /25!!!! Now this is something I had my gripes with new RIPE NCC hostmasters as well in the past - returning PI space, requesting the same amount of PA space, and having to send back and forth at least 5 mails... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet GmbH Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From andre at NL.UU.NET Thu Apr 13 22:57:45 2000 From: andre at NL.UU.NET (Andre Koopal) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 22:57:45 +0200 Subject: Further to the training questions In-Reply-To: <200004131011.LAA17621@NetBSD.noc.COLT.NET>; from Neil J. McRae on Thu, Apr 13, 2000 at 11:11:05AM +0100 References: <38F58B64.EADFD38D@uk.uu.net> <200004131011.LAA17621@NetBSD.noc.COLT.NET> Message-ID: <20000413225745.B12044@NL.UU.NET> On Thu, Apr 13, 2000 at 11:11:05AM +0100, Neil J. McRae wrote: > On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 08:55:00 +0000 > Stephen Burley wrote: > > > 2. To relieve the stress on the wait que i would like to see a standard > > a min ssignment window applied to all none new LIR's, something not too > > small but something not too large say a /25 - this means that the > > hostmasters would not be boged down with small insignificant requests > > and would be able to concentrate on answering the larger requests thus > > getting used to larger business needs. > > I would not like to see this, I think that it is vital that > there is no assignment window to new registries. Although I think > that if new registries are being managed by exeprienced people > who have demonstrated their understanding of the procedures > then they should be given an assignment window. So if you left > UUNET to setup stephenswarez.com and opened up an LIR > you would not have to go through the zero assignment window > issues again. > I really see 'none new LIR's' above. So either you have the feeling a LIR understands what it is about and you give them a reasonable assignment window (/25 or something) or you don't and you keep them on 0. I agree with stephen that something in between doesn't really help. Experienced people is difficult to see at a new LIR, or do you want some 'hostmaster certificate'? A new LIR doesn't have many request mostly and it will soon be clear they understand, so the AW will be raised fast. Regards, Andre From stephenb at uk.uu.net Fri Apr 14 13:07:24 2000 From: stephenb at uk.uu.net (Stephen Burley) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:07:24 +0000 Subject: Further to the training questions References: <38F58B64.EADFD38D@uk.uu.net> <004c01bfa55c$f0609920$d68138d4@melitacable.com> <20000413175149.H2836@Space.Net> Message-ID: <38F6FBEC.F2AE607D@uk.uu.net> > > > Not that I mind too much - most (>95%) of our assignments are /26 or > smaller, and only very rarely a larger one than /24 happens, but in > that case it would be nice to be able to react more quickly... This is my major concern, the hostmasters are not getting any exposure to larger (larger than /29 /28 /27) requests and when they do so many questions are asked it takes weeks to get an approval. Do not get me wrong i am not having a go at the Hostmasters in general, but there does seem to a real problem in motivation of the Hosmaster team in general, looking at the staff turnover in the last year if i was a manager of that team alarm bells would be ringing. I do not think its the work they have to do (although answering /29 questions all the time must be soul destroying) it seems a fundamental problem of motivation and team spirit. Generaly speaking they are a good bunch and there are some expeirienced hostmasters at RIPE but what are the NCC doing to keep our (RIPE) hostmasters working for us (RIPE)? I do not believe the way to solve the wait que problem is to throw more people at it, you just end up with an unskilled team, with the new comers relying on the "oldtimers" to get them up to speed. We have the makings of a good team the managemnet just need to get the motivation and work flow working for team and not against it. This is what has promted my recent questions the concern for the RIPE communities hostmaster team and wether they are being cared for, because at the end of the day we as ISP's /telco's are the only ones that suffer. After all we are living in a very competative fast moving market which is not slowing down except when we submit an address approval which to me is wrong. The NCC should be keeping up with all trends in technology employment and customer perceptions of a high tech industry with a lumbering giant (the NCC) slowing their connection to the internet down all for a /25 of space. Regards Stephen Burley UUNET EMEA Hostmaster > From hph at asp.infostream.no Fri Apr 14 11:06:08 2000 From: hph at asp.infostream.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:06:08 +0200 Subject: REMINDER: ICANN Board nominations Message-ID: <007701bfa5f0$b2d99040$e204e1c3@asp.infostream.no> Please note that this nomination both serves the purpose of findig a sucessor to Pindar Wong, but also serves the purpose of creating a list of candidates to supplement the ICANN board in the unlikely case any of the other board members are stepping down. -hph ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Wilson" To: Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 3:06 AM Subject: [aso-policy] [aso-announce] REMINDER: ICANN Board nominations > REMINDER: Call for ICANN Board nominations (ASO) > > In compliance with the ASO MoU (http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/aso-mou.html), > the Address Council and ICANN have issued a call for nominations to the > ICANN Board, of candidates to fill vacant ASO seats on the ICANN board as > they become vacant. > > The first ASO seat scheduled to become vacant is currently occupied by Mr. > Pindar Wong, who will stand down from the ICANN Board on 30 September 2000. > However, candidates nominated at this time may also be chosen by the AC to > fill seats which become vacant before or after this time. Note that > appointments to the ICANN board must satisfy the geographic diversity > constraints specified in section 3c of the ASO MoU. > > Any individual may be nominated within this process, with the exception of > any official of a national government or a multinational entity established > by treaty or other agreement between national governments (ICANN Bylaws Art. > V., Sec 5.). Self-nominations are permitted. > > Nominations should be sent by email to and > should state the following details : > > A. Nominee details > > 1. Full name > 2. Organisational affiliation > 3. Email address > 4. Physical address > 5. Country of residence > 6. Telephone contact > 7. Biography > > B. Details of nominating individual > > 1. Full name > 2. Organisational affiliation > 3. Email address > 4. Country of residence > > Nominations must be submitted in English and must be received by the ASO > Secretariat before 0900 GMT 19 April 2000 (30 days prior to the General > Assembly meeting). After nomination all nominees will be contacted via email > to confirm their willingness to serve as an ICANN Director. If the nominee > is not contactable via email then the nomination will not be confirmed, and > nominee must explicitly confirm the nomination for the nomination to be > considered confirmed. > > All confirmed nominations will be listed on the ASO web site (see > http://www.aso.icann.org) as soon as they are confirmed. The list of > nominated individuals and the supporting comments will be passed to the > Address Council after all nominees are confirmed, and prior to the General > Assembly meeting on 19 May 2000. > > More information regarding the GA and nominations process will be posted to > the ASO web site (http://www.aso.icann.org) in due course. > > END > > * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-announce * > * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-announce-request at aso.icann.org * > * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * > * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request at aso.icann.org * > From stephenb at uk.uu.net Fri Apr 14 17:38:23 2000 From: stephenb at uk.uu.net (Stephen Burley) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 15:38:23 +0000 Subject: Clarification of past few days. Message-ID: <38F73B6F.A744F88@uk.uu.net> Hi I would like to clarify the points that have been raised over the pas few days just to avoid any confusion. 1. Hostmasters gaining expierience from visiting the work enviroments of various ISP's 2. Adequate training for the Hostmasters including incentives to expand knowledge and experiance. 3. The unnecessary length of the wait Q. I do not want the issues to get clouded in any way, they are linked only by the knock on effect of one problem effecting another, and as such should be treated as seperate. I realise after reading some of the emails i have posted they may have been interpreted as bullish if looked at from the wrong perspective. Change for the better only ever comes about with much discussion and listening from all parties....but unfortunmatly this particular discussion has been unusualy one sided........ May I remind all, the RIPE NCC works for and is funded by the RIPE community at large. This means that the NCC is directly accountable for any action taken/not taken bringing negative effects to bear on NCC or the RIPE Community at large. I would just like to praise the NCC on the whole for the sterling work the hostmasters and other groups are doing, however i feel its time to take alook at the service we are being forced to accept and how our money is being spent. I am not trying to get at individuals within the NCC all i am trying to do is get the managment to revisit any problems effecting RIPE be it wait Q problems or skill shortage problems(which we have all been through). I hope this is listened by the right people with the right frame of mind so we can move forward in our efforts to continue to show the rest of the world how a internet IP registry should be run. Awaiting further open discussion. Kindest Regards Stephen Burley UUNET EMEA Hostmaster. From hph at infostream.no Fri Apr 14 20:29:09 2000 From: hph at infostream.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 20:29:09 +0200 Subject: Further to the training questions References: <38F58B64.EADFD38D@uk.uu.net> <200004131011.LAA17621@NetBSD.noc.COLT.NET> <20000413225745.B12044@NL.UU.NET> Message-ID: <002b01bfa63f$54200bc0$e206e1c3@dont.no> > Experienced people is difficult to see at a new LIR, or do you want some > 'hostmaster certificate'? That was my tought too, but the trouble is that the assgnment window is set at registry level not LIR-hostmaster level. But assigning assinment winwows to individual hostmasters would soon get unmanagable. (From the employee side of it it would be neat: if you dont raise my salary I will leave the company, and all the other hostmasters left behind only have a /xxx assignmentwindow) > A new LIR doesn't have many request mostly and > it will soon be clear they understand, so the AW will be raised fast. True. The trouble here will be the length of the vait queue, because all the requests from an experienced hostmaster will of cource be flawless and thus only need one iteration to get aproval :-) -hph From hph at infostream.no Fri Apr 14 20:54:13 2000 From: hph at infostream.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 20:54:13 +0200 Subject: Further to the training questions References: <38F58B64.EADFD38D@uk.uu.net> <004c01bfa55c$f0609920$d68138d4@melitacable.com> <20000413185946.E27380@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <004c01bfa642$e9831ec0$e206e1c3@dont.no> > > Do other LIRs experience this?? > > The waitqueue is indeed very long. My last assignment request (admittedly > large) got its first response 9 days after it was sent to a hostmaster from > the wait queue.. Next response was 5 days later. Eventually it was approved > 16 or 17 days after the initial request. Now, I realise the request wasnt > standard, but it's a bit long :) (i dont blame the hostmaster in question btw!). An interesting quesion here is how the NCC ticketing system organizes the wait queue and what happens when a request is getting too old (and what is realy too old ?). >From dealing with the opposite problem towards our customers: they have been complaining that it takes to long to get answers and solutions from us. We then introduced a new trouble ticket system, Action Remedy Request, to get better statistics ond what is going os. We have so far seen that a majority of the time on the requests not soleved within 8 hours (which is the internal target we have set for normal requests) is waiting for customer feedback or are unasigned. The trouble then is to get thoose requests in front of the queue so that the customers thinks we are responsive to her request. The real trouble lies with customer satisfaction though, because it seems to be that some customers are dis satisfied with our service if we mail them back with further questions. My personal gut feeling is that this is because they then do not understand the questions mailed back or don't see their relevance. And the strange thing is that if they are adressed back trough a phone call this disatisfaction does not occur. Then they think we are concerned. (Wi did two customer surveys one before we changed the system and one after the new system was introduced, and the overall results got slightly worse :-(, but we got better feedback in some of the areas we focused on. So this is by no means easy or rocket science... Another important thing for us was to introduce something like a trouble manager, when a request was floating around in the system assigned or unassigend to some resouce group for more than a certain time limit, a dedicated person should get notified to take action to bring in the correct expertise. Some of this may be relevant for the RIPE NCC. Maybe just looking about the algorithms for organizing the incomming requests and followups will solve some problems ? -hph From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Sat Apr 15 20:01:26 2000 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 20:01:26 +0200 Subject: Registration Services discussion Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20000415193830.009c6cb0@localhost> Dear All, having noticed that there is no NCC response to the current training discussion on the list, let me assure you that indeed we are aware of the deficiencies in Registration Services. We have been discussing this between us for quite some time, and weighing possible angles of attack. Joao's mails reflect some of that thinking. Registration Services indeed are the core of the NCC, and we must keep up with the demands of growth. It is far up on my priority list. Your contributions are highly welcome in this context, and I am confident that together with our hostmaster collegues we will be able to come up with a road map to more efficient and speedier services. I believe that the NCC hostmasters are doing a great job; both the newcomers in learning the job's ends as quickly as possible, and the old hands in handing on their wealth of knowledge to help that process. regards, Axel Pawlik From barbara at globalcenter.net Mon Apr 17 08:27:31 2000 From: barbara at globalcenter.net (Barbara Roseman) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 06:27:31 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Registration Services discussion In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20000415193830.009c6cb0@localhost> Message-ID: Axel, Thank you for the response to the current discussion. I do think several important issues have been raised in this discussion that need further exploration. In particular, I think it would be very productive if the NCC could prepare a report for the Budapest meeting regarding the distribution of IP requests that must receive approval from Registration Services. It would be extremely helpful in evaluating any proposed changes to procedure to know what percentage of requests requiring approval are in the /28 or longer assignment window. I believe there is an impression that these requests for 8 or fewer IPs are taking up a disproportionate amount of the limited resources available. Hard statistics would go a long way towards affirming or disproving that impression. Given how long the current request queue is, and how many of us rely on this service until our assignment window increases, I think disclosure of how the workload is distributed across cidr designations would be appropriate. ---- Barbara Roseman IP Addressing Engineer Global Crossing 408-543-4711 barbara at gblx.net From Gareth.Staff at uk.uu.net Mon Apr 17 13:13:19 2000 From: Gareth.Staff at uk.uu.net (Gareth Staff) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 12:13:19 +0100 Subject: RIPE NCC Issues Message-ID: To put some perspective on my position within UUNET, Stephen Burley frequently actions my requests for address space for new and developing countries within Europe. I have been observing the current discussions on this workgroup with increasing alarm. It is my understanding that RIPE is a function that is necessary for the intelligent control of limited address space, and that the RIPE NCC management team are responsible for the operations that go into allocating this address space. Furthermore, RIPE is made up of numerous business interests and that the RIPE NCC is, in effect, employed by these businesses for the express purpose of handling their IP address requests. Since there are many issues that have been raised (and I have yet to see a constructive response from the RIPE NCC management) I feel it necessary to ask the question.. Who does the RIPE NCC management answer to ? >From a business perspective, something which seems to be lacking from the responses that I have seen, there has to be someone responsible for the policies of the RIPE NCC management. I would sincerely hope that it is the members of RIPE that the RIPE NCC must answer to, and that the forum for these policies must be this mailing list. If this is the case, then I see little value in the service being offered at the moment, and would like to see some positive emails on what the RIPE NCC can do to help alleviate the problems that we are all seeing. My primary concern is the current turnover of hostmasters that deal with all of our requests. A high turnover of staff is almost always a result of poor management, and unless this is addressed, all other issues become secondary. There are staffing problems in all organisations, from obtaining the services of suitable candidates for the post, to staff retention. If the RIPE NCC are having trouble in this area, then perhaps they should request the help of the members of RIPE, all of whom have many years of experience. I would like to see the RIPE NCC being more open to these discussions, and honest about any problems that they are having. I really do not think it is acceptable to act as though we, as members of the RIPE community, do not have a right to know what is going on within the organisation and to promote a closed door policy as far as information is concerned. After all, who pays the bills ? Accountability for the services offered must be clarified if positive action is to be taken, I would not like to see these issues ignored and swept under the carpet, otherwise we face the prospect of having an organisation that we pay for, doesn't work for us, and implements internal policies that alienates its' staff to the point where they feel that their only option is to leave. This is something that all members of the community must take seriously and take some time to address if we are to effect some improvement in services. Yours sincerely, Gareth Staff. Program Manager, EMEA Operations UUNET (An MCI WorldCom company) gareths at uk.uu.net/gstaff at uu.net From michael.dillon at gtsip.net Mon Apr 17 14:11:59 2000 From: michael.dillon at gtsip.net (michael.dillon at gtsip.net) Date: 17 Apr 2000 13:11:59 +0100 Subject: RIPE NCC Issues Message-ID: <20000417121159.2946.cpmta@c000.lhr.cp.net> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From Gareth.Staff at uk.uu.net Mon Apr 17 14:41:45 2000 From: Gareth.Staff at uk.uu.net (Gareth Staff) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 13:41:45 +0100 Subject: RIPE NCC Issues Message-ID: Please see inline for comments. > -----Original Message----- > From: michael.dillon at gtsip.net [mailto:michael.dillon at gtsip.net] > Sent: 17 April 2000 13:12 > To: lir-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: RIPE NCC Issues > > > On Mon, 17 April 2000, Gareth Staff wrote: > > > Furthermore, RIPE is made up of numerous business interests and that > > the RIPE NCC is, in effect, employed by these businesses > for the express > > purpose of handling their IP address requests. > > This is an understandable misunderstanding but nevertheless, > a misunderstanding. First you should remember that a > not-for-profit organization like RIPE is typically not > employed by anyone but is operated by a group of members for > the benefit of the group as a whole and often for the benefit > of the general public as well. Secondly, you may wish to note > that RIPE serves not only businesses but also academic > institutions, governmental organizations and, often > indirectly, the general public in Europe, the Middle East and > Northern Africa. Thankyou for this clarification. Perhaps it was my inadequate phraseology that led to this comment. I agree that I missed out the non-business oriented members, and will bear this in mind. The comment I made was intended to mean that it was the 'members' who 'employ' the RIPE NCC by way of membership fees. > > Since there are many issues that have been raised (and I have yet to > > see a constructive response from the RIPE NCC management) I feel > > it necessary to ask the question.. > > > > Who does the RIPE NCC management answer to ? > > First of all, they certainly do not answer to the members of > this mailing list. The list is available for interested > parties to discuss a specific set of issues, namely those > related to LIRs, but that doesn't mean the NCC management > reports to this list. If the people on this list are paid up members of RIPE, then you are implying that RIPE does not answer to it's members. If the recipients of this list are not necessarily members of RIPE, then perhaps you could point me in the direction of the 'members' mailing list. > You need to be aware that there is a somewhat complex > structure that has been built up over the years. On the one > hand, RIPE is a type of membership organization that answers > to its members and has built a tradition of focussing its > activities in areas that its members are willing to support. > This can be tricky at times because many of the members are > businesses that compete directly in one or more Internet > related industries. If RIPE has to answer to it's members, then this is the kind of verification that I wanted, but I would like to hear it from the RIPE NCC management. > On the other hand, RIPE NCC is part of a global structure > that manages those aspects of the Internet which need to be > jointly managed. There is a central focus for this management > structure in ICANN http://www.icann.org which has taken over > the management and policy activities that were formerly > handled by IANA http://www.iana.org and the IETF > http://www.ietf.org. The RIPE NCC is one of three global > organizations (soon to be 5) that handle the day to day > activities of IP address registration in their region. The > others are ARIN http://www.arin.net in the Americas and > Sothern Africa, and APNIC http://www.apnic.net in the > Asia-Pacific region. These three organizations could be said > to also answer to ICANN and the ASO council of ICANN because > they must administer policies which are agreeable to all > parts of this planet. > > If this sounds a lot like a complex political beast, then you > are beginning to understand. I am aware of the various political affiliations that encompass the world, I was attepting the simplify the picture and focus on what I perceive to be the core of the problem. > > I would like to see the RIPE NCC being more open to these > discussions, and > > honest about > > any problems that they are having. I really do not think it > is acceptable to > > act as though we, > > as members of the RIPE community, do not have a right to > know what is going > > on within > > the organisation and to promote a closed door policy as far > as information > > is concerned. > > And now you should understand why you see the typical > symptoms of a bureaucracy within RIPE. This is neither bad > nor good; just one of those things that are inevitable in > organizations that must serve many masters. What I'm talking about is not bureaucracy related symptoms, but rather deliberate actions on the part of the management that under no circumstances can be condoned by any member of this community. I realise that I'm taking a lot upon myself for presuming to speak for all, but I am very confident that when everything comes out in the wash, as it surely must, RIPE members are going to be asking some very pointed questions of the way in which the RIPE NCC management has acted. > > After all, who pays the bills ? > > See the part about many masters... RIPE members then. > > Accountability for the services offered must be clarified > if positive action > > is to be taken, I would > > not like to see these issues ignored and swept under the > carpet, otherwise > > we face the prospect > > of having an organisation that we pay for, doesn't work for us, and > > implements internal policies > > that alienates its' staff to the point where they feel that > their only > > option is to leave. > > I have yet to see evidence that the issues are being ignored. > So far, I see the RIPE NCC attempting to deal with some > issues, discussing those issues openly, and finding that > there is some disagreement as to whether their plan of action > is the right one. Time will tell. I am not being unduly pessimistic here, I am trying to highlight issues with a view to getting them fixed, not form a lynch mob. > > This is something that all members of the community must > take seriously and > > I also do not see any evidence that people in the community > are not taking the issue seriously. They, like all of us, > have to balance many issues in their workaday lives and can > only give top priority to a small number of them. Since we > don't know all the issues vying for their attention, I think > it would be hasty for us to judge them with such little information. I don't believe I said that the community was not taking this issue seriously, merely affirmed the need. As for having 'such little information', this is part of what I am trying to address. > --- > Michael Dillon Phone: +44 (20) 7769 8489 > Mobile: +44 (79) 7099 2658 > Director of Product Engineering, GTS IP Services > 151 Shaftesbury Ave. > London WC2H 8AL > UK > I would just like to add that we fully support the principles upon which RIPE functions. It is not my intention to simply supply a list of problems, rather to open the discussion to facilitate the remedy, whatever form that may take. Regards, Gareth Staff Program Manager, EMEA Operations UUNET (An MCI WorldCom company) gareths at uk.uu.net/gstaff at uu.net From mike.norris at heanet.ie Mon Apr 17 17:18:12 2000 From: mike.norris at heanet.ie (mike.norris at heanet.ie) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 16:18:12 +0100 Subject: RIPE NCC Issues In-Reply-To: <3F2D1A940FB8D1118A1F0060978361292310B2@ntserver.heanet.ie> Message-ID: <3F2D1A940FB8D1118A1F0060978361292F5B15@ntserver.heanet.ie> > My primary concern is the current turnover of hostmasters that deal with all > of our requests. A high turnover of staff is almost always a result of poor > management, and unless this is addressed, all other issues become secondary. I appreciate your concerns, but you may be going out on a limb with assumptions and implications like the above. Recruitment of hostmasters is a long-standing feature of RIPE NCC, as they try to cope with the rising demand for service from existing and new LIRs. We members who adopt the annual plan of RIPE NCC invariably get it wrong, underpredict growth rate and leave management with the task of trying to catch up and fill the gaps. Right now, there is a slow-down in the service, due largely to a sudden and large upsurge in the number of requests; this has happened in a time frame much shorter than that associated with hostmaster recruitment, so there has been a shortfall in resources to deal with the demand. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that RIPE NCC couldn't do better, or that this is UUnet's fault as a member. Indeed, UUnet has always been more than exemplary in its role as an active member of RIPE NCC, to the benefit of the rest of us; your concern in this instance is witness to that. But it's not right to say that RIPE NCC management does not give top priority to its core business as the regional IP registry, nor is it fair to imply that such management is poor. Regards. Mike Norris From Gareth.Staff at uk.uu.net Mon Apr 17 17:24:50 2000 From: Gareth.Staff at uk.uu.net (Gareth Staff) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 16:24:50 +0100 Subject: RIPE NCC Issues Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: mike.norris at heanet.ie [mailto:mike.norris at heanet.ie] > Sent: 17 April 2000 16:18 > To: 'Gareth Staff'; lir-wg at ripe.net > Subject: RE: RIPE NCC Issues > > > > > My primary concern is the current turnover of hostmasters > that deal with > all > > of our requests. A high turnover of staff is almost always > a result of > poor > > management, and unless this is addressed, all other issues become > secondary. > > I appreciate your concerns, but you may be going out on a limb with > assumptions and implications like the above. Recruitment of > hostmasters > is a long-standing feature of RIPE NCC, as they try to cope with the > rising demand for service from existing and new LIRs. We members who > adopt the annual plan of RIPE NCC invariably get it wrong, > underpredict > growth rate and leave management with the task of trying to > catch up and > fill the gaps. > > Right now, there is a slow-down in the service, due largely > to a sudden and > large upsurge > in the number of requests; this has happened in a time frame > much shorter > than that > associated with hostmaster recruitment, so there has been a > shortfall in > resources to deal with the demand. > > Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that RIPE NCC couldn't do > better, or that > this is UUnet's fault as a member. Indeed, UUnet has always > been more than > exemplary in its role as an active member of RIPE NCC, to the > benefit of the > rest of us; your concern in this instance is witness to that. > But it's not > right to say that RIPE NCC management does not give top > priority to its core > business as the regional IP registry, nor is it fair to imply > that such > management > is poor. Point taken :o) I will bide my time as far as further comments go, and will await developments. > Regards. > > Mike Norris > Regards, Gareth Staff. From joao at ripe.net Mon Apr 17 19:41:57 2000 From: joao at ripe.net (Joao Luis Silva Damas) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 19:41:57 +0200 Subject: NCC issues and other threads Message-ID: Dear all, I am finally back in Amsterdam (got in the airplane on Thursday afternooon, off the plane on Saturday morning) and I can now reply to your mails with the attention they deserve. Apologies if anyone thought we were not paying attention. First a formal point: some issues here seem to refer only to members of the RIPE NCC Association and the proper forum would therefore be the local-ir at ripe.net list, rather than the lir-wg at ripe.net, but anyway, since there is nothing to hide, I don't mind having this discussion here at all. Let's start by making a list of the points raised: 1) Getting the RIPE NCC hostmasters to get in touch with the day to day operations of ISPs and other members. 2) Training. 3) Who is the NCC accountable to. 4) Hostmaster turnover 5) The wait queue. Current situation. Statistics. Solutions. 1) This discussion started some time go and then died without an implementation decision. The RIPE NCC looked at the goals that were being requested by the membership, all legitimate, and studied the pros and cons of the proposed solution. We took into account the impact it would have if it were implemented as suggested and looked at other possible ways of achieving the same goals with the minimum possible impact. I think this is just sensible management of resources and I hope you agree with this so far. The RIPE NCC, as any other company needs to keep its employees up to speed with the environment they work in. This is achieved by training. The current internal training situation can definitively be improved and we took the initiative of hiring a technical advisor/trainer with the goal of having someone who can provide technical advise on latest technologies to hostmasters when they get complex requests and also, setting up a good internal training system to be able to get new hostmasters up to speed faster and then keep the ones that are already here up to date with developments in the Internet that affect hostmaster work (eg. new GSM/GPRS services, new approaches to network design people are using, etc). This person will be in charge of preparing and delivering this sort of internal training. We proposed using this function as a very good candidate to visit a few LIRs (not all of them are ISPs, by the way) so that the vision that is transmitted to the hostmasters is not only a "textbook" one but rather the practical applications and implementations are also analyzed as part of the courses. The original proposal to the LIR-WG was seen as having a very big impact for the NCC and as consuming too many resources. Of course, if the membership is willing to really put up with the additional costs to obtain what I think would be the same practical results, then fine with me, just propose it at the annual members meeting and we'll accomodate it in the budget. 2) The RIPE NCC's training policies are pretty much internal, like salaries, HR policies, etc. We will not normally discuss such internal matters with the membership other than in the proper forums, of which this is not one. I think the General Manager, as main interface to the members will be able to elaborate on this if requested. In my opinion, the membership should evaluate the results, which as I said before can be improved (and we are already taking steps to do so). I don't think it is appropriate to report here on which hostmasters (or other NCC staff) attend which courses, when, where or why. I would like to add though that the only issue we have had with training has been a recent incident where a member of staff enrolled in a course without waiting for a response from management. 3) Well, this is actually pretty obvious. We are accountable to the membership as represented by themselves and the Executive Board. 4) Lately we have had a bigger than usual turnover, which has strained Registration Services. We are addressing this by implementing better internal training and some other modifications in the way work is carried out in order to make the hostmaster work less tedious, more efficient and more satisfying. We hope this will reduce turnover. It will also diminish the impact of the remaining turnover, which will never be zero. 5) The wait queue is currently high, or at least higher than we want it to be. It currently stands at about a week. Most people here are trying very hard to get a quick ticket response time, but there are several factors that have so far prevented this bo noticed by you. During the last 3-4 months the rate of incoming requests is about 50% higher than it had been last year. To make matters worse, the sickness rate has been above average. Since taking over the position of Head of External Services 2 months ago, I have embarked, together with Nurani Nimpuno [Registration Services Manager] in a full review of the current situation, looking at staffing issues, training, work environment, etc in order to improve things wherever possible. A preliminary view indicates that there is a lot of room for improvement in the tools that hostmasters use. Software development does, however take some time to get from requirements, to desgin, to implementation. In the meantime, the way to get the wait queue down is to throw more human resources at the problem. We have recently offered positions to 4 new hostmasters (in part to replace some that are leaving, to be musicians, webmasters and system administrators) and to increase the total amount of people dealing with tickets. We may hire some more in the near future. At the same time, as I said above, we are working on improving the startup period of hostmasters and the life quality of existing hostmasters by hiring an advisor/trainer. We shall present statistics about the current profile of requests as well as other matters relating to the tickets handled by hostmasters in the upcoming RIPE meeting (Budapest). From those statistics we can probably discuss if any changes to the assignement window would affect the situation. This is a registration policy and therefore up for debate by lir-wg. The RIPE NCC shall make a recommendation at the meeting, if the wg chair agrees to put this on the agenda (there will be a few more policy related question, I hope, soon). So this is it for now. Apologies for the long mail If you feel I have left out some points from the discussion that you would like to see discussed, feel free to raise them and I will address them. Jetlagged, Joao From matthew at planet.net.uk Tue Apr 18 13:36:48 2000 From: matthew at planet.net.uk (Matthew Robinson) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:36:48 +0100 Subject: DB consistancy checking tools Message-ID: <6BF1C330AF53D311BE5D00508B09081001E3FDB5@PLANET01> Firstly my sincere apologies for not sorting something out earlier. I've spent most of my time either building networks or looking after my son Lewis, born 26/03/2000 (two weeks late), weighing 5450g or 12lbs 4oz (I like to over engineer)! The hospital didn't include any instructions and despite several detailed searches I have been unable to locate either a RIPE document or RFC detailed care of a newborn baby! Are people still interested in the idea of a users forum as described below and should we try to have a BoF in Budapest or do we still need more of an list based discussion? -----Original Message----- From: Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet [mailto:woeber at cc.univie.ac.at] Sent: 20 January 2000 14:55 To: matthew at planet.net.uk Cc: lir-wg at ripe.net; db-wg at ripe.net; woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Subject: RE: DB consistancy checking tools Matthew, I think this is an interesting proposal: >I have been wondering recently whether a separate group should be set up for >the sole purpose of creating tools/advise/methods/hints 'n' tips for LIR's >to keep on top of their entries and make management easier. A sort of RIPE >users working group not concerned with designing objects for the database >but how to put existing objects in it, remove them, manage them, etc. > >My 2c > >Matthew To start things moving, could you come up with a coarse draft of ideas and short-term goals to take up? On the more formal side, one of the possible solutions to accomodate that activity might be to create a TaskForce to work on well-defined items during RIPE35 (do you intend to particpate?). This TF might be supported by both LIR and DB, or sponsored by whichever group is seen to be appropriate... From Gareth.Staff at uk.uu.net Wed Apr 19 11:22:38 2000 From: Gareth.Staff at uk.uu.net (Gareth Staff) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 10:22:38 +0100 Subject: I am disgusted Message-ID: There have been a lot of matters discussed in this work group over the last couple of weeks. Much of the information that both Stephen Burley and myself have been privy to has, admittedly, come from RIPE NCC hostmasters themselves. We are not talking about disgruntled employees spreading tales about their organisation, but rather dedicated individuals who wish to see their daily lives improve and be able to offer a good service to the members of this community. They could not contribute directly to these discussions because of the internal policies of the RIPE NCC. Now, many companies have non-disclosure agreements with their employees and rightly so. Many of the allusions I have made in my emails has had as it's source, emails from employees of the RIPE NCC. However, without their express permission to reveal this information, I have been necessarily circumspect with the information I have emailed to this list. Nevertheless, the RIPE NCC management have obviously taken great pains to ascertain the identities of these individuals since two RIPE NCC hostmasters have been sacked over this matter. Since there is now nothing more for them to lose, I am going to reveal the manner in which they were dismissed in order that the RIPE NCC have a chance to explain their actions. Before I do this however, I would like to pount out categorically that this email is not be to taken as being the views of my company, but rather as that of an individual who does not like to see people persecuted. The first person to be sacked, was not done so for revealing information to persons outside of the RIPE NCC. He was sacked for daring to take the managers to task and to try and get someone to improve the situation for the other hostmasters. I am not entirely certain if this person was already working his notice period, but the end result was that he was asked in to a managers office, fired, escorted home in a taxi whereupon his PC was confiscated. The second person to be sacked was done so for discussing internal RIPE NCC matters with a member. The internal matter in question was the internal policy that no-one gets any training whatsoever. She was off work sick when they sacked her, and although I won't give you the full story, it is going to take her a long time to put her life back in order I'm sure. I cannot imagine the feelings that the other RIPE NCC hostmasters must be feeling at this moment in time. Needless to say they are all probably scared sh*tless about losing their jobs, and you never know, I may even lose mine over this, since I have also dared to speak out. The difference however is that I am no longer trying to be constructive in my criticism and am openly condemning the gestapo-like tactics of the RIPE NCC management. I would like to point out to the RIPE NCC that I did not receive this information from a RIPE NCC hostmaster this time, but from a personal friend of those involved (that doesn't work for you) so you can call off your witch hunt. I am sure that many members of this list will be surprised at the vehemence of this email and dubious of the material that it contains. I would like to say that this situation has been brewing for several weeks, and has come to a head because I take the sacking of valued hostmasters seriously. Not just for the fact that they discussed internal matters with a member, but also for the manner in which the deed was done. At the end of the day, the hostmasters work for the community, at least they used to. It is time to get everything out in the open and demand that the RIPE NCC management remove their restrictions on letting their hostmasters contribute to this list so that you can ascertain the truth for yourselves and not have to rely on my heresay. Your truly, Gareth. From neil at COLT.NET Wed Apr 19 11:33:57 2000 From: neil at COLT.NET (Neil J. McRae) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 10:33:57 +0100 Subject: I am disgusted In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Apr 2000 10:22:38 BST." Message-ID: <200004190933.KAA21379@NetBSD.noc.COLT.NET> On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 10:22:38 +0100 Gareth Staff wrote: > I am sure that many members of this list will be surprised at the vehemence > of this email and > dubious of the material that it contains. I would like to say that this > situation has been brewing > for several weeks, and has come to a head because I take the sacking of > valued hostmasters > seriously. Not just for the fact that they discussed internal matters with a > member, but also for > the manner in which the deed was done. At the end of the day, the > hostmasters work for the > community, at least they used to. Gareth - thanks for pointing this out to the RIPE community - you have done us all a great service whilst potentially putting yourself at great risk. I'd like to demand an explanation from the RIPE NCC Management ASAP and ask the RIPE board to launch an official investigation into these issues. In our industry we CANNOT afford to lose valued people at any level. > It is time to get everything out in the open and demand that the > RIPE NCC management remove their restrictions on letting their > hostmasters contribute to this list so that you can ascertain > the truth for yourselves and not have to rely on my heresay. I'll second this. Regards, Neil. From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Wed Apr 19 16:05:56 2000 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 16:05:56 +0200 Subject: Recent Mails to the list Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20000419140140.00c56100@localhost> Dear mailing list members, As you may be aware, we have a longstanding policy of not discussing internal matters of the RIPE NCC in public. In this spirit I shall not expand on the content of recent mails addressed to this list concerning the RIPE NCC staffing issues. Equally, this does not imply any statement about their truthfulness. I do, however, encourage discussion of the services we provide to our members at any time. All of our staff, including myself, are open and willing to discuss any issues relating to the RIPE NCC services. The Executive Board of the RIPE NCC Association, as the ultimate members' representation, will be happy to discuss any issue you feel you cannot bring up with the Managing Director. Sincerely, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC From neil at COLT.NET Wed Apr 19 16:26:53 2000 From: neil at COLT.NET (Neil J. McRae) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:26:53 +0100 Subject: Recent Mails to the list In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Apr 2000 16:05:56 +0200." <4.2.0.58.20000419140140.00c56100@localhost> Message-ID: <200004191426.PAA23328@NetBSD.noc.COLT.NET> On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 16:05:56 +0200 Axel Pawlik wrote: Axel, This is rediculous. I would like to formally request that the RIPE NCC board look into the report furnished by Gareth, and that at the next AGM of the RIPE that these policies are looked into closely to see if they make sense. Regards, Neil. > > Dear mailing list members, > > As you may be aware, we have a longstanding policy > of not discussing internal matters of the RIPE NCC > in public. > > In this spirit I shall not expand on the content > of recent mails addressed to this list concerning > the RIPE NCC staffing issues. Equally, this does not > imply any statement about their truthfulness. > > I do, however, encourage discussion of the services > we provide to our members at any time. All of our staff, > including myself, are open and willing to discuss any > issues relating to the RIPE NCC services. > > The Executive Board of the RIPE NCC Association, as > the ultimate members' representation, will be happy > to discuss any issue you feel you cannot bring up > with the Managing Director. > > Sincerely, > > Axel Pawlik > Managing Director > RIPE NCC -- Neil J. McRae C O L T I N T E R N E T neil at COLT.NET "In this world there's two kinds of people my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig?" From svl at nrw.net Wed Apr 19 18:04:10 2000 From: svl at nrw.net (Siegfried Langenbach) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 17:04:10 +0100 Subject: Recent Mails to the list In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20000419140140.00c56100@localhost> Message-ID: <200004191454.QAA13730@birch.ripe.net> Hallo, does that mean we have to change the list ? siegfried On 19 Apr 00, at 16:05, Axel Pawlik wrote: > > Dear mailing list members, > > As you may be aware, we have a longstanding policy > of not discussing internal matters of the RIPE NCC > in public. > > In this spirit I shall not expand on the content > of recent mails addressed to this list concerning > the RIPE NCC staffing issues. Equally, this does not > imply any statement about their truthfulness. > > I do, however, encourage discussion of the services > we provide to our members at any time. All of our staff, > including myself, are open and willing to discuss any > issues relating to the RIPE NCC services. > > The Executive Board of the RIPE NCC Association, as > the ultimate members' representation, will be happy > to discuss any issue you feel you cannot bring up > with the Managing Director. > > Sincerely, > > Axel Pawlik > Managing Director > RIPE NCC > From nigel.titley at level3.com Wed Apr 19 18:12:57 2000 From: nigel.titley at level3.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 17:12:57 +0100 (BST) Subject: Recent Mails to the list In-Reply-To: <22561.956155528@critter.freebsd.dk> Message-ID: On 19-Apr-2000 Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > I think we need to get a message from the exec board stating that > they will look into these matters ASAP. > > This is fairly and squarely what the exec board is responsible for. > > I think both the overall issue of hostmaster training, the rapid > turnover of hostmasters (if this is indeed the case), and the two > specific persons mentioned in previous emails needs to be examined. > > I think it would be a good idea if the exec board did a round of > interviews with all current employees of RIPE and maybe a couple > of former ones to get to the bottom of this issue. > > I think we all want this resolved, and fast please, we have business > to attend. I have asked, on behalf of the Executive Board, for a brief from Axel, to the Board, on the facts of the matter. Once we have a statement of fact we can proceed with whatever action seems appropriate. Nigel -- Tel: +44 171 864 4450 Fax: +44 171 864 4488 Well I'm disenchanted too. We're all disenchanted (James Thurber) (http://www.seanet.com/~thurber/disenchanted.gif) From cimbrauglio at bancaimi.it Wed Apr 19 17:45:30 2000 From: cimbrauglio at bancaimi.it (Costantino Imbrauglio) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 17:45:30 +0200 Subject: Recent Mails to the list References: Message-ID: <38FDD49A.4E62CE1E@bancaimi.it> Dear Sirs, it seems that RIPE NCC has adopted a spamming policy....... Could you (all of you) please stop filling our mailboxes with such crap? Do I really need to remember you the meaning of words like "respect", "customers", "service fee", etc. Stop it and stop it IMMEDIATELY! Thank you very much in advance. Best regards, Costantino Imbrauglio cimbrauglio at bancaimi.it Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <4.2.0.58.20000419140140.00c56100 at localhost>, Axel Pawlik > writes: > > >As you may be aware, we have a longstanding policy > >of not discussing internal matters of the RIPE NCC > >in public. > > Well, In general one doesn't want to wash the laundry in public, > but in case something is truly rotten, one may have to. > > I'm not passing judgment on the various allegations here, but simply > the fact that it has gotten to this point indicates that something > smells fishy. > > We may have two hostmasters who were fired for total incompetence > or we may have two whistleblowers sacked to keep them quiet, there > is no way we can tell - yet. > > >The Executive Board of the RIPE NCC Association, as > >the ultimate members' representation, will be happy > >to discuss any issue you feel you cannot bring up > >with the Managing Director. > > (Well, obviously people have no problems with bringing things up > with you, it seems that the issue is the other way around...) > > I think we need to get a message from the exec board stating that > they will look into these matters ASAP. > > This is fairly and squarely what the exec board is responsible for. > > I think both the overall issue of hostmaster training, the rapid > turnover of hostmasters (if this is indeed the case), and the two > specific persons mentioned in previous emails needs to be examined. > > I think it would be a good idea if the exec board did a round of > interviews with all current employees of RIPE and maybe a couple > of former ones to get to the bottom of this issue. > > I think we all want this resolved, and fast please, we have business > to attend. > > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > phk at FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 > FreeBSD coreteam member | BSD since 4.3-tahoe > Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. > > -- > This message is confidential and solely for the intended addressee(s). If > you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the > sender immediately and delete it from your system. Unauthorised > reproduction, disclosure, modification and/or distribution of this e-mail > is strictly prohibited. The contents of this e-mail do not constitute a > commitment by Banca d'Intermediazione Mobiliare IMI S.p.A. (Banca IMI), > except where expressly provided for in a written agreement between you and > Banca IMI. > > Banca dIntermediazione Mobiliare IMI S.p.A. is an authorised Bank in > Italy. > Banca dIntermediazione Mobiliare IMI S.p.A., London Branch, a member of > the London Stock Exchange, > is regulated by the Securities and Futures Authority for the conduct of > investment business in the UK. From phk at critter.freebsd.dk Wed Apr 19 16:45:28 2000 From: phk at critter.freebsd.dk (Poul-Henning Kamp) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 16:45:28 +0200 Subject: Recent Mails to the list In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Apr 2000 16:05:56 +0200." <4.2.0.58.20000419140140.00c56100@localhost> Message-ID: <22561.956155528@critter.freebsd.dk> In message <4.2.0.58.20000419140140.00c56100 at localhost>, Axel Pawlik writes: >As you may be aware, we have a longstanding policy >of not discussing internal matters of the RIPE NCC >in public. Well, In general one doesn't want to wash the laundry in public, but in case something is truly rotten, one may have to. I'm not passing judgment on the various allegations here, but simply the fact that it has gotten to this point indicates that something smells fishy. We may have two hostmasters who were fired for total incompetence or we may have two whistleblowers sacked to keep them quiet, there is no way we can tell - yet. >The Executive Board of the RIPE NCC Association, as >the ultimate members' representation, will be happy >to discuss any issue you feel you cannot bring up >with the Managing Director. (Well, obviously people have no problems with bringing things up with you, it seems that the issue is the other way around...) I think we need to get a message from the exec board stating that they will look into these matters ASAP. This is fairly and squarely what the exec board is responsible for. I think both the overall issue of hostmaster training, the rapid turnover of hostmasters (if this is indeed the case), and the two specific persons mentioned in previous emails needs to be examined. I think it would be a good idea if the exec board did a round of interviews with all current employees of RIPE and maybe a couple of former ones to get to the bottom of this issue. I think we all want this resolved, and fast please, we have business to attend. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk at FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD coreteam member | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. From registry at EU.net Wed Apr 19 22:51:13 2000 From: registry at EU.net (registry at EU.net) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 22:51:13 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Recent Mails to the list In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20000419140140.00c56100@localhost> Message-ID: On Wed, 19 Apr 2000, Axel Pawlik wrote: >> As you may be aware, we have a longstanding policy of not discussing >> internal matters of the RIPE NCC in public. Well, here's my point of view: no matter how everyone is shocked by the information about internal RIPE NCC matters, I think Axel is right: we should really focus on the services we get from the RIPE NCC. However, from time to time, when we don't get a satisfying quality of service, we have to scream. And we can do it using two ways: * Strictly corporate style - to escalate the problem to the highest level possible (RIPE NCC Executive Board, General Manager etc.) and wait for their action. If no result - fire the management, elect a new board and repeat the procedure in an infinite loop, or: * Open semi-academic style - determine the real cause of the problem and find a solution together, in an open, constructive discussion. For many, many years of dealing with RIPE NCC, we somehow used to deal with all problems using the latter, open approach. Maybe it's because RIPE was born in an academic environment ... or simply because the open approach worked! I'm aware, like many other people, that RIPE NCC is not an academic institution any more. Why, however, to change things that worked so fine for years? Let's discuss! Regards, Beri -- ----- ___ Berislav Todorovic, Network Engineer ---- / / /____ ____ _/_ -- KPNQwest N.V. - IP NOC (formerly EUnet) --- /--- / // //___/ / --- Singel 540, 1017 AZ Amsterdam, NL -- /___ /___// //___ /_ ---- Phone: (+3120) 530-5457; Fax: (+3120) 622-4657 - --- Email: beri at EU.net; Mobile: (+31651) 333-641 From acaraglio at interfree.it Wed Apr 19 17:58:24 2000 From: acaraglio at interfree.it (acaraglio at interfree.it) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 17:58:24 +0200 Subject: R: Recent Mails to the list In-Reply-To: <38FDD49A.4E62CE1E@bancaimi.it> Message-ID: What about Cosmic Peace? 1.Peace 2.Love and 3.Sex or do you prefer mental maturbation? please stop this SPAMMING or change argument...... bye A. > -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: owner-local-ir at ripe.net [mailto:owner-local-ir at ripe.net]Per conto di > Costantino Imbrauglio > Inviato: mercoledl 19 aprile 2000 17.45 > A: Poul-Henning Kamp; lir-wg at ripe.net; local-ir at ripe.net > Oggetto: Re: Recent Mails to the list > > > Dear Sirs, > > it seems that RIPE NCC has adopted a spamming policy....... > > Could you (all of you) please stop filling our mailboxes with such crap? > > Do I really need to remember you the meaning of words like "respect", > "customers", "service fee", etc. > > Stop it and stop it IMMEDIATELY! > > Thank you very much in advance. > > Best regards, > > Costantino Imbrauglio > cimbrauglio at bancaimi.it > > > Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > > In message <4.2.0.58.20000419140140.00c56100 at localhost>, Axel Pawlik > > writes: > > > > >As you may be aware, we have a longstanding policy > > >of not discussing internal matters of the RIPE NCC > > >in public. > > > > Well, In general one doesn't want to wash the laundry in public, > > but in case something is truly rotten, one may have to. > > > > I'm not passing judgment on the various allegations here, but simply > > the fact that it has gotten to this point indicates that something > > smells fishy. > > > > We may have two hostmasters who were fired for total incompetence > > or we may have two whistleblowers sacked to keep them quiet, there > > is no way we can tell - yet. > > > > >The Executive Board of the RIPE NCC Association, as > > >the ultimate members' representation, will be happy > > >to discuss any issue you feel you cannot bring up > > >with the Managing Director. > > > > (Well, obviously people have no problems with bringing things up > > with you, it seems that the issue is the other way around...) > > > > I think we need to get a message from the exec board stating that > > they will look into these matters ASAP. > > > > This is fairly and squarely what the exec board is responsible for. > > > > I think both the overall issue of hostmaster training, the rapid > > turnover of hostmasters (if this is indeed the case), and the two > > specific persons mentioned in previous emails needs to be examined. > > > > I think it would be a good idea if the exec board did a round of > > interviews with all current employees of RIPE and maybe a couple > > of former ones to get to the bottom of this issue. > > > > I think we all want this resolved, and fast please, we have business > > to attend. > > > > -- > > Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > > phk at FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 > > FreeBSD coreteam member | BSD since 4.3-tahoe > > Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by > incompetence. > > > > -- > > This message is confidential and solely for the intended > addressee(s). If > > you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the > > sender immediately and delete it from your system. Unauthorised > > reproduction, disclosure, modification and/or distribution of > this e-mail > > is strictly prohibited. The contents of this e-mail do not constitute a > > commitment by Banca d'Intermediazione Mobiliare IMI S.p.A. (Banca IMI), > > except where expressly provided for in a written agreement > between you and > > Banca IMI. > > > > Banca dIntermediazione Mobiliare IMI S.p.A. is an authorised Bank in > > Italy. > > Banca dIntermediazione Mobiliare IMI S.p.A., London Branch, a member of > > the London Stock Exchange, > > is regulated by the Securities and Futures Authority for the conduct of > > investment business in the UK. > > > From fabriziob at interfree.it Wed Apr 19 17:46:10 2000 From: fabriziob at interfree.it (Fabrizio Beria) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 17:46:10 +0200 Subject: R: Recent Mails to the list References: Message-ID: <016901bfaa16$63fb9de0$c00a0a0a@interfree.it> Stop please! this is "noise" (lo dice anche il Palissi)! thanks Fabrizio Beria ----- Original Message ----- From: Nigel Titley To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: ; ; Axel Pawlik Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 6:12 PM Subject: Re: Recent Mails to the list > > On 19-Apr-2000 Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > I think we need to get a message from the exec board stating that > > they will look into these matters ASAP. > > > > This is fairly and squarely what the exec board is responsible for. > > > > I think both the overall issue of hostmaster training, the rapid > > turnover of hostmasters (if this is indeed the case), and the two > > specific persons mentioned in previous emails needs to be examined. > > > > I think it would be a good idea if the exec board did a round of > > interviews with all current employees of RIPE and maybe a couple > > of former ones to get to the bottom of this issue. > > > > I think we all want this resolved, and fast please, we have business > > to attend. > > I have asked, on behalf of the Executive Board, for a brief from Axel, to the > Board, on the facts of the matter. Once we have a statement of fact we can > proceed with whatever action seems appropriate. > > Nigel > -- > Tel: +44 171 864 4450 Fax: +44 171 864 4488 > Well I'm disenchanted too. We're all disenchanted (James Thurber) > (http://www.seanet.com/~thurber/disenchanted.gif) > > From jbroom at manta.outremer.com Wed Apr 19 23:27:55 2000 From: jbroom at manta.outremer.com (John Charles Broomfield) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 17:27:55 -0400 (AST) Subject: Recent Mails to the list In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20000419140140.00c56100@localhost> from "Axel Pawlik" at Apr 19, 0 04:05:56 pm Message-ID: <200004192127.RAA30526@manta.outremer.com> If we accept that RIPE has a duty to its members and is under the obligation to serve them, and as such that this mailing list is for its members, then messages to local-ir/lir-wg shouldn't really be considered as public, but as informational for the members of RIPE. In other words, INTERNAL. Or are non lir individuals allowed on these lists? Having said that, the allegations we have just read are serious enough to warrant some statement of clarification from the board. Possibly this statement should even be public due to the seriousness of the allegations. This particular LIR would like more information on the issue so as to dispell any questions about the fairness and open-ness (sp?) of RIPE NCC operations. It is not good enough to BE fair and open, but one must also APPEAR to be fair and open. More so an entity in the position that RIPE NCC is in. Yours, John Broomfield. JCB1-RIPE > Dear mailing list members, > > As you may be aware, we have a longstanding policy > of not discussing internal matters of the RIPE NCC > in public. > > In this spirit I shall not expand on the content > of recent mails addressed to this list concerning > the RIPE NCC staffing issues. Equally, this does not > imply any statement about their truthfulness. > > I do, however, encourage discussion of the services > we provide to our members at any time. All of our staff, > including myself, are open and willing to discuss any > issues relating to the RIPE NCC services. > > The Executive Board of the RIPE NCC Association, as > the ultimate members' representation, will be happy > to discuss any issue you feel you cannot bring up > with the Managing Director. > > Sincerely, > > Axel Pawlik > Managing Director > RIPE NCC > From joao at ripe.net Thu Apr 20 11:59:38 2000 From: joao at ripe.net (Joao Luis Silva Damas) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 11:59:38 +0200 Subject: Recent Mails to the list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If I may add a few words... I agree with you, at least partially. The semi-academic approach has been and still is an excellent way of carrying out discussion in the RIPE environment. I believe the RIPE NCC follows this model when discussions relate to our services and their quality, proposing new services, policies that services are based on and their required level of performance. Further, as Axel Pawlik stated, we are all (and that means all) open and willing to discuss any and all aspects of the above. However, I believe we should not be discussing dirty or non-dirty internal operation matters in forums like this because there is no open semi-academic style for discussing staff performance, salaries, health (mental or physical) and related issues that you come across as part of normal company operations. I really do not think that we should go through the process of throwing doubt at all of a company's staff just because of a few rotten apples. It is quite evident that the RIPE NCC currently has some problems. I will not discuss here where these problems come from but they are certainly not the result of spontaneous generation. We, the RIPE NCC management, have been addressing them. We are possibly even more annoyed than you about the current status of the wait queue. I would not like anyone to get the impression from what has transpired that the RIPE NCC's staff is not up to the task or what is commonly referred to as professional. There are quite a few excellent people here and I believe it would be unfair to tag them all with bad markings as a result of some individual actions, which are being taken care of. Since I took the position of Head of External Services at the RIPE NCC, just over two months ago, we have engaged in a full review of work methods in the departments I oversee and have addressed the background problems. The effects of those actions, however, take some time before they are visible. We are now in the process of improving our internal training, first in registration services, later in other areas. Our policy for external training has always been quite flexible and generous. I trust everyone at the RIPE NCC will be able to corroborate. We are now starting a full review of the operational environment that supports the registration activities in order to make hostmaster work more efficient and less tedious. This is however, a process that will take a few months to conclude. As far as addressing the current problem that cannot wait for a utopian perfect world, we are hiring additional human resources dedicated to registration activities. Since this also takes time, we are also looking at shorter term solutions such as re-shuffling the current internal pool of human resources within the RIPE NCC to alleviate the current situation as soon as possible. I believe the upcoming RIPE meeting will provide an excellent forum for interactive discussion about our service level. We intend to go there with as much information as possible to give you a good view of where time is spent when dealing with "tickets" and if needed enable you to take decisions about policy changes (eg. the assignment window) based on fact rather than gut feeling. I am looking forward to a constructive discussion on all these issues in order to constructively move the RIPE NCC forward. We will continue to do our best to clean up the few remaining problem areas in the RIPE NCC and improve our services to the community. Regards, Joao Damas Head of External Services RIPE NCC At 22:51 +0200 19/4/00, registry at EU.net wrote: >On Wed, 19 Apr 2000, Axel Pawlik wrote: > >>> As you may be aware, we have a longstanding policy of not discussing >>> internal matters of the RIPE NCC in public. > >Well, here's my point of view: no matter how everyone is shocked by the >information about internal RIPE NCC matters, I think Axel is right: we >should really focus on the services we get from the RIPE NCC. > >However, from time to time, when we don't get a satisfying quality of >service, we have to scream. And we can do it using two ways: > >* Strictly corporate style - to escalate the problem to the highest > level possible (RIPE NCC Executive Board, General Manager etc.) and > wait for their action. If no result - fire the management, elect a > new board and repeat the procedure in an infinite loop, or: > >* Open semi-academic style - determine the real cause of the problem > and find a solution together, in an open, constructive discussion. > >For many, many years of dealing with RIPE NCC, we somehow used to deal >with all problems using the latter, open approach. Maybe it's because >RIPE was born in an academic environment ... or simply because the >open approach worked! > >I'm aware, like many other people, that RIPE NCC is not an academic >institution any more. Why, however, to change things that worked so >fine for years? Let's discuss! > >Regards, >Beri > >-- >----- ___ Berislav Todorovic, Network Engineer >---- / / /____ ____ _/_ -- KPNQwest N.V. - IP NOC (formerly EUnet) >--- /--- / // //___/ / --- Singel 540, 1017 AZ Amsterdam, NL >-- /___ /___// //___ /_ ---- Phone: (+3120) 530-5457; Fax: (+3120) 622-4657 >- --- Email: beri at EU.net; Mobile: (+31651) 333-641 From Rimas.Janusauskas at sc.vu.lt Thu Apr 20 11:44:07 2000 From: Rimas.Janusauskas at sc.vu.lt (Rimas Janusauskas) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 12:44:07 +0300 (EET DST) Subject: Registration Services discussion In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20000415193830.009c6cb0@localhost> Message-ID: Dear Alex, Please forgive me for rude style, but Your words about "speedier services" sounds like a mockery. I have take random surf through RIPE NCC ticketing system and find out that reguests aren't responded for 10 days (NCC#2000048014/8020/8023): only "EMAIL Customer / EMAIL Ack" As first respond do not mean approvement from RIPE NCC, please imagine how long full process could last? With best wishes, Rimas Janusauskas, Vilnius University Hostmaster ______________________________________________________________________ P.O.Box 543 e-mail: rimas.janusauskas at sc.vu.lt LT-2024 Vilnius Lithuania fax/phone: +370 2 687188 ______________________________________________________________________ On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, Axel Pawlik wrote: > Your contributions are highly welcome in this context, > and I am confident that together with our hostmaster > collegues we will be able to come up with a road map > to more efficient and speedier services. > > I believe that the NCC hostmasters are doing a great > job; both the newcomers in learning the job's ends > as quickly as possible, and the old hands in handing > on their wealth of knowledge to help that process. > > regards, > > Axel Pawlik > From netmaster at space.net Thu Apr 20 14:55:37 2000 From: netmaster at space.net (Gert Doering, Netmaster) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 14:55:37 +0200 Subject: R: Recent Mails to the list In-Reply-To: <016901bfaa16$63fb9de0$c00a0a0a@interfree.it>; from fabriziob@interfree.it on Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 05:46:10PM +0200 References: <016901bfaa16$63fb9de0$c00a0a0a@interfree.it> Message-ID: <20000420145537.Y2836@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 05:46:10PM +0200, Fabrizio Beria wrote: > Stop please! > > this is "noise" (lo dice anche il Palissi)! > > thanks > > Fabrizio Beria No, it is not. This is very important matter. If you can't stand the mail volume, unsubscribe. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet GmbH Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From randy at psg.com Thu Apr 20 15:44:11 2000 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 06:44:11 -0700 Subject: Recent Mails to the list References: <4.2.0.58.20000419140140.00c56100@localhost> Message-ID: > * Open semi-academic style - determine the real cause of the problem > and find a solution together, in an open, constructive discussion. > > For many, many years of dealing with RIPE NCC, we somehow used to deal > with all problems using the latter, open approach. Maybe it's because > RIPE was born in an academic environment ... or simply because the > open approach worked! > > I'm aware, like many other people, that RIPE NCC is not an academic > institution any more. Why, however, to change things that worked so > fine for years? Let's discuss! there is a difference between open discussion and wild american usenet style flaming and hysteria. i look to ripe members for the former, not the latter. randy From hph at infostream.no Tue Apr 25 13:04:58 2000 From: hph at infostream.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 13:04:58 +0200 Subject: Recent Mails to the list References: <200004192127.RAA30526@manta.outremer.com> Message-ID: <007601bfaea7$06293ac0$e204e1c3@asp.infostream.no> > If we accept that RIPE has a duty to its members and is under the obligation > to serve them, and as such that this mailing list is for its members, then > messages to local-ir/lir-wg shouldn't really be considered as public, but as > informational for the members of RIPE. In other words, INTERNAL. Or are > non lir individuals allowed on these lists? local-ir is restricted to members of the RIPE NCC Association lir-wg is an open list to all interested in policy matters, see http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/index.html for its charter and other info related to this workinggroup. For a period of time almost all discussions has taken place in the open forum (lir-wg). There is however a very low overlap between local-ir and lir-wg so I for one have started sending anouncements to multiple lists. Btw, the "which lists is for what" has been on the slides for the last couple of LIR meetings. Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen LIR-WG chair From ryan at on-line-finance.net Tue Apr 25 12:36:39 2000 From: ryan at on-line-finance.net (Ryan O`Connell) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 11:36:39 +0100 (BST) Subject: R: Recent Mails to the list In-Reply-To: <20000420145537.Y2836@Space.Net> Message-ID: This discussion is taking place on the local-ir mailing list as well as the lir-wg mailing list. lir-wg is an appropraite forum for this, local-ir is not. Please DO NOT carry on this discussion on local-ir! On 20-Apr-2000 Gert Doering, Netmaster wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 05:46:10PM +0200, Fabrizio Beria wrote: >> Stop please! >> >> this is "noise" (lo dice anche il Palissi)! >> >> thanks >> >> Fabrizio Beria > > No, it is not. This is very important matter. > > If you can't stand the mail volume, unsubscribe. -- Ryan O'Connell - On:Line Finance IT Department - NOC/Support Voice Line: +44 1932 422320 Something's wrong, shut the light, Heavy thoughts tonight And they aren't of snow white Dreams of war, dreams of liars, Dreams of dragon's fire And of things that will bite From tin at castel.nl Tue Apr 25 13:07:31 2000 From: tin at castel.nl (tin at castel.nl) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 13:07:31 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Recent Mails to the list In-Reply-To: from "Randy Bush" at Apr 20, 2000 06:44:11 AM Message-ID: <200004251107.NAA25676@tinmachine.castel.nl> > > I'm aware, like many other people, that RIPE NCC is not an academic > > institution any more. Why, however, to change things that worked so > > fine for years? Let's discuss! > > there is a difference between open discussion and wild american usenet > style flaming and hysteria. i look to ripe members for the former, not > the latter. > > randy Me too! Just kidding. :) To continue the discussion about discussing: Personally I think that the, acting as RIPE is still academic, thing is very good. Not only for this specific matter but also in many more ways. In the half year that I've been doing RIPE stuff overhere accountmanagers have asked me a couple of times if we couldn't sue RIPE for not giving address space directly when requested. A 141 would have to pass through our legal department as well as RIPE NCC's and penalties would have to be paid whenever one of the parties doesn't make up to the contract. Just think of the consequenses it would have. If someone has a problem with discussions like these I don't think he or she understands the unique environment we have here. Only the really large companies would benefit from a more commercial kind of RIPE NCC. If you do'nt agree with me, you are probably, or should consider, working for one of those companies. :) Maybe it is because I first meet the internet at a university I feel this way and my guess is that those opposed to an academic approach have a different background. Greetings, Martin -- Tin will not rust or give in but melts directly when heated =B-) From RamiLolah at nesma.net.sa Tue Apr 25 14:53:10 2000 From: RamiLolah at nesma.net.sa (Rami Al-Lolah) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 15:53:10 +0300 Subject: Recent Mails to the list References: <200004192127.RAA30526@manta.outremer.com> <007601bfaea7$06293ac0$e204e1c3@asp.infostream.no> Message-ID: <001701bfaeb5$35d490e0$0901a8c0@nesma.net.sa> What the FUCK is going ON here !!!!!!!!!!!!1 ----- Original Message ----- From: Hans Petter Holen To: John Charles Broomfield ; Axel Pawlik Cc: ; Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 2:04 PM Subject: Re: Recent Mails to the list > > If we accept that RIPE has a duty to its members and is under the > obligation > > to serve them, and as such that this mailing list is for its members, then > > messages to local-ir/lir-wg shouldn't really be considered as public, but > as > > informational for the members of RIPE. In other words, INTERNAL. Or are > > non lir individuals allowed on these lists? > > local-ir is restricted to members of the RIPE NCC Association > lir-wg is an open list to all interested in policy matters, see > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/index.html for its charter and other > info related to this workinggroup. > > For a period of time almost all discussions has taken place in > the open forum (lir-wg). > > There is however a very low overlap between local-ir and lir-wg so I for one > have started sending anouncements to multiple lists. > > Btw, the "which lists is for what" has been on the slides for the > last couple of LIR meetings. > > Sincerely, > Hans Petter Holen > LIR-WG chair > > From slinden at cybernet-ag.net Tue Apr 25 16:13:33 2000 From: slinden at cybernet-ag.net (Sylvia Linden) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:13:33 +0200 Subject: AW: Recent Mails to the list Message-ID: <094E23F20776D3119EC7005004561A57939764@warp21.cybernet.intern> ! > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Rami Al-Lolah [SMTP:RamiLolah at nesma.net.sa] > Gesendet am: Dienstag, 25. April 2000 14:53 > An: Hans Petter Holen; John Charles Broomfield; Axel Pawlik > Cc: lir-wg at ripe.net; local-ir at ripe.net > Betreff: Re: Recent Mails to the list > > What the FUCK is going ON here !!!!!!!!!!!!1 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Hans Petter Holen > To: John Charles Broomfield ; Axel Pawlik > > Cc: ; > Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 2:04 PM > Subject: Re: Recent Mails to the list > > > > > If we accept that RIPE has a duty to its members and is under the > > obligation > > > to serve them, and as such that this mailing list is for its members, > then > > > messages to local-ir/lir-wg shouldn't really be considered as public, > but > > as > > > informational for the members of RIPE. In other words, INTERNAL. Or > are > > > non lir individuals allowed on these lists? > > > > local-ir is restricted to members of the RIPE NCC Association > > lir-wg is an open list to all interested in policy matters, see > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/index.html for its charter and other > > info related to this workinggroup. > > > > For a period of time almost all discussions has taken place in > > the open forum (lir-wg). > > > > There is however a very low overlap between local-ir and lir-wg so I for > one > > have started sending anouncements to multiple lists. > > > > Btw, the "which lists is for what" has been on the slides for the > > last couple of LIR meetings. > > > > Sincerely, > > Hans Petter Holen > > LIR-WG chair > > > > > From slinden at cybernet-ag.net Tue Apr 25 16:13:33 2000 From: slinden at cybernet-ag.net (Sylvia Linden) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:13:33 +0200 Subject: AW: Recent Mails to the list Message-ID: <094E23F20776D3119EC7005004561A57939764@warp21.cybernet.intern> ! > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Rami Al-Lolah [SMTP:RamiLolah at nesma.net.sa] > Gesendet am: Dienstag, 25. April 2000 14:53 > An: Hans Petter Holen; John Charles Broomfield; Axel Pawlik > Cc: lir-wg at ripe.net; local-ir at ripe.net > Betreff: Re: Recent Mails to the list > > What the FUCK is going ON here !!!!!!!!!!!!1 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Hans Petter Holen > To: John Charles Broomfield ; Axel Pawlik > > Cc: ; > Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 2:04 PM > Subject: Re: Recent Mails to the list > > > > > If we accept that RIPE has a duty to its members and is under the > > obligation > > > to serve them, and as such that this mailing list is for its members, > then > > > messages to local-ir/lir-wg shouldn't really be considered as public, > but > > as > > > informational for the members of RIPE. In other words, INTERNAL. Or > are > > > non lir individuals allowed on these lists? > > > > local-ir is restricted to members of the RIPE NCC Association > > lir-wg is an open list to all interested in policy matters, see > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/index.html for its charter and other > > info related to this workinggroup. > > > > For a period of time almost all discussions has taken place in > > the open forum (lir-wg). > > > > There is however a very low overlap between local-ir and lir-wg so I for > one > > have started sending anouncements to multiple lists. > > > > Btw, the "which lists is for what" has been on the slides for the > > last couple of LIR meetings. > > > > Sincerely, > > Hans Petter Holen > > LIR-WG chair > > > > > From randy at psg.com Tue Apr 25 16:05:13 2000 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 07:05:13 -0700 Subject: Recent Mails to the list References: <200004192127.RAA30526@manta.outremer.com> <007601bfaea7$06293ac0$e204e1c3@asp.infostream.no> <001701bfaeb5$35d490e0$0901a8c0@nesma.net.sa> Message-ID: > What the FUCK is going ON here !!!!!!!!!!!!1 people making fools of themselves. randy From ctrl at rdsnet.ro Tue Apr 25 16:36:57 2000 From: ctrl at rdsnet.ro (Cornel Ciocirlan) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 17:36:57 +0300 (EEST) Subject: AW: Recent Mails to the list In-Reply-To: <094E23F20776D3119EC7005004561A57939764@warp21.cybernet.intern> Message-ID: Hello, I think RIPE should start moderating these lists for a while ... until the flamewars are over. My 2c. > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: Rami Al-Lolah [SMTP:RamiLolah at nesma.net.sa] > > Gesendet am: Dienstag, 25. April 2000 14:53 > > An: Hans Petter Holen; John Charles Broomfield; Axel Pawlik > > Cc: lir-wg at ripe.net; local-ir at ripe.net > > Betreff: Re: Recent Mails to the list > > > > What the FUCK is going ON here !!!!!!!!!!!!1 > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Hans Petter Holen > > To: John Charles Broomfield ; Axel Pawlik > > > > Cc: ; > > Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 2:04 PM > > Subject: Re: Recent Mails to the list > > > > > > > > If we accept that RIPE has a duty to its members and is under the > > > obligation > > > > to serve them, and as such that this mailing list is for its members, > > then > > > > messages to local-ir/lir-wg shouldn't really be considered as public, > > but > > > as > > > > informational for the members of RIPE. In other words, INTERNAL. Or > > are > > > > non lir individuals allowed on these lists? > > > > > > local-ir is restricted to members of the RIPE NCC Association > > > lir-wg is an open list to all interested in policy matters, see > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/index.html for its charter and other > > > info related to this workinggroup. > > > > > > For a period of time almost all discussions has taken place in > > > the open forum (lir-wg). > > > > > > There is however a very low overlap between local-ir and lir-wg so I for > > one > > > have started sending anouncements to multiple lists. > > > > > > Btw, the "which lists is for what" has been on the slides for the > > > last couple of LIR meetings. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > Hans Petter Holen > > > LIR-WG chair > > > > > > > > > From nigel.titley at level3.com Tue Apr 25 17:18:37 2000 From: nigel.titley at level3.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:18:37 +0100 (BST) Subject: Recent Mails to the list In-Reply-To: <001701bfaeb5$35d490e0$0901a8c0@nesma.net.sa> Message-ID: Well, up to the point at which your message hit the lists, we were having a quiet, civilised discussion, and Hans-Petter had just reminded us of what the franchise of each list is. On 25-Apr-2000 Rami Al-Lolah wrote: > What the FUCK is going ON here !!!!!!!!!!!!1 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Hans Petter Holen > To: John Charles Broomfield ; Axel Pawlik > > Cc: ; > Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 2:04 PM > Subject: Re: Recent Mails to the list > > >> > If we accept that RIPE has a duty to its members and is under the >> obligation >> > to serve them, and as such that this mailing list is for its members, then >> > messages to local-ir/lir-wg shouldn't really be considered as public, but >> as >> > informational for the members of RIPE. In other words, INTERNAL. Or are >> > non lir individuals allowed on these lists? >> >> local-ir is restricted to members of the RIPE NCC Association >> lir-wg is an open list to all interested in policy matters, see >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/index.html for its charter and other >> info related to this workinggroup. >> >> For a period of time almost all discussions has taken place in >> the open forum (lir-wg). >> >> There is however a very low overlap between local-ir and lir-wg so I for one >> have started sending anouncements to multiple lists. >> >> Btw, the "which lists is for what" has been on the slides for the >> last couple of LIR meetings. >> >> Sincerely, >> Hans Petter Holen >> LIR-WG chair >> >> -- Tel: +44 171 864 4450 Fax: +44 171 864 4488 Well I'm disenchanted too. We're all disenchanted (James Thurber) (http://www.seanet.com/~thurber/disenchanted.gif) From jdd at vbc.net Tue Apr 25 16:35:49 2000 From: jdd at vbc.net (Jim Dixon) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 15:35:49 +0100 (BST) Subject: AW: Recent Mails to the list In-Reply-To: <094E23F20776D3119EC7005004561A57939764@warp21.cybernet.intern> Message-ID: On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Sylvia Linden wrote: > ! > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: Rami Al-Lolah [SMTP:RamiLolah at nesma.net.sa] > > Gesendet am: Dienstag, 25. April 2000 14:53 > > An: Hans Petter Holen; John Charles Broomfield; Axel Pawlik > > Cc: lir-wg at ripe.net; local-ir at ripe.net > > Betreff: Re: Recent Mails to the list > > > > What the FUCK is going ON here !!!!!!!!!!!!1 Some of the messages in this thread have been enlightening. These one line responses that convey nothing waste everyone's time. If you are annoyed with the recent activity on this list, please unsubscribe or filter. Spare the rest of us your noise. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 From jruigrok at via-net-works.nl Tue Apr 25 16:33:19 2000 From: jruigrok at via-net-works.nl (Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:33:19 +0200 Subject: Recent Mails to the list In-Reply-To: <001701bfaeb5$35d490e0$0901a8c0@nesma.net.sa>; from RamiLolah@nesma.net.sa on Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 03:53:10PM +0300 References: <200004192127.RAA30526@manta.outremer.com> <007601bfaea7$06293ac0$e204e1c3@asp.infostream.no> <001701bfaeb5$35d490e0$0901a8c0@nesma.net.sa> Message-ID: <20000425163318.M67044@lucifer.bart.nl> -On [20000425 16:10], Rami Al-Lolah (RamiLolah at nesma.net.sa) wrote: >What the FUCK is going ON here !!!!!!!!!!!!1 For people representing the top of the Internet engineers I have seen a lot of disrespect for: - netiquette - point of views and opinions expressed by other people Could we please go back to a liststate in which people who have npthing useful to contribute be quiet? Thanks for the consideration, kind regards, -- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven Network- and systemadministrator VIA Net.Works The Netherlands BSD: Technical excellence at its best http://www.via-net-works.nl When Silence cries... Is it what I feel? Or is it what you really long to be..? From james at getreal.co.uk Tue Apr 25 17:19:16 2000 From: james at getreal.co.uk (James Boyce) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:19:16 +0100 Subject: Recent Mails to the list References: Message-ID: <02c401bfaec9$9f727080$4100a8c0@jim> I have to agree with that this is hardly the place for these discussions - can those that wish to continue debating this subject, which has no interest to our business whatsoever, please form a sub group with a unique email address and continue their discussion in private. James Boyce Real Data Services Limited ----- Original Message ----- From: Nigel Titley To: Rami Al-Lolah Cc: ; Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 04:18 Subject: Re: Recent Mails to the list > Well, up to the point at which your message hit the lists, we were having a > quiet, civilised discussion, and Hans-Petter had just reminded us of what the > franchise of each list is. > > On 25-Apr-2000 Rami Al-Lolah wrote: > > What the FUCK is going ON here !!!!!!!!!!!!1 > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Hans Petter Holen > > To: John Charles Broomfield ; Axel Pawlik > > > > Cc: ; > > Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 2:04 PM > > Subject: Re: Recent Mails to the list > > > > > >> > If we accept that RIPE has a duty to its members and is under the > >> obligation > >> > to serve them, and as such that this mailing list is for its members, then > >> > messages to local-ir/lir-wg shouldn't really be considered as public, but > >> as > >> > informational for the members of RIPE. In other words, INTERNAL. Or are > >> > non lir individuals allowed on these lists? > >> > >> local-ir is restricted to members of the RIPE NCC Association > >> lir-wg is an open list to all interested in policy matters, see > >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/index.html for its charter and other > >> info related to this workinggroup. > >> > >> For a period of time almost all discussions has taken place in > >> the open forum (lir-wg). > >> > >> There is however a very low overlap between local-ir and lir-wg so I for one > >> have started sending anouncements to multiple lists. > >> > >> Btw, the "which lists is for what" has been on the slides for the > >> last couple of LIR meetings. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Hans Petter Holen > >> LIR-WG chair > >> > >> > > -- > Tel: +44 171 864 4450 Fax: +44 171 864 4488 > Well I'm disenchanted too. We're all disenchanted (James Thurber) > (http://www.seanet.com/~thurber/disenchanted.gif) > From ripe at netalia.com Wed Apr 26 10:35:54 2000 From: ripe at netalia.com (ripe at netalia.com) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 09:35:54 +0100 Subject: Recent Mails to the list In-Reply-To: <02c401bfaec9$9f727080$4100a8c0@jim> References: Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20000426093554.011c4964@mail.netalia.com> At 16:19 25-04-00 +0100, you wrote: >I have to agree with that this is hardly the place for these discussions - >can those that wish to continue debating this subject, which has no interest >to our business whatsoever, please form a sub group with a unique email >address and continue their discussion in private. > >James Boyce >Real Data Services Limited > I must disagree this is the place to discuss something that should concern all members of RIPE, for 11 months of the year this list is dormant with only the occasional posting from RIPE itself. Yours Mark Siegler Sales E-mail sales at netalia.com Tech E-mail tech at netalia.com Netalia Internet Ltd. PO BOX 17364 London NW2 2WY UK Sales Freephone 0800 358 0084 General 020 7431 8811 Fax 020 7431 6688 Tech 020 8922 7574 From netmaster at space.net Wed Apr 26 12:07:16 2000 From: netmaster at space.net (Gert Doering, Netmaster) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:07:16 +0200 Subject: Recent Mails to the list In-Reply-To: <02c401bfaec9$9f727080$4100a8c0@jim>; from james@getreal.co.uk on Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 04:19:16PM +0100 References: <02c401bfaec9$9f727080$4100a8c0@jim> Message-ID: <20000426120716.D2836@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 04:19:16PM +0100, James Boyce wrote: > I have to agree with that this is hardly the place for these discussions - > can those that wish to continue debating this subject, which has no interest > to our business whatsoever, please form a sub group with a unique email > address and continue their discussion in private. Interesting point. "This subject has no interest to our business whatsoever". Don't you do Internet business, handing out IP addresses to your clients? Don't you use RIPE NCC services? This discussion is *highly* relevant to those considering themselves part of the RIPE community - as problems in the RIPE NCC area (long hostmaster queue, employee fluctuation, etc.) directly affects the way "we" can do Internet busineess. If you don't think that affects you, maybe you should close down your LIR and unsubscribe from all the RIPE lists? Then you will automatically stop getting mails about "those topics". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet GmbH Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From Stefan.Gasteiger at Gendorf.de Wed Apr 26 16:16:43 2000 From: Stefan.Gasteiger at Gendorf.de (Stefan.Gasteiger at Gendorf.de) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 16:16:43 +0200 Subject: Recent Mails to the list Message-ID: <4185051FE012D411A98B0008C7337A2E01D2A1@atlantis.gendorf.hoechst.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: James Boyce [mailto:james at getreal.co.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 5:19 PM > To: Nigel Titley; Rami Al-Lolah > Cc: local-ir at ripe.net; lir-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: Recent Mails to the list > > > I have to agree with that this is hardly the place for these > discussions - > can those that wish to continue debating this subject, which I strongly disagree. This is a topic concerning all RIPE members. I would like to see this discussed in an OPEN way public to all RIPE community. > has no interest > to our business whatsoever What's your business then? My business is to satisfy customer's needs by offering address and name services (RIPE?) services. I also don't agree with the argument, that "only the service offered by RIPE NCC counts". I'm also interested in the way the service is generated. (For example: I don't buy carpets made by children) Regards, Stefan Gasteiger SG5599-RIPE I+K Betrieb (zertifiziert nach DIN EN ISO 9001) InfraServ Gendorf Tel.: +49 8679 7 5599 Fax: +49 8679 7 39 5599 Mobiltel.: +49 172 8649205 E-Mail: Stefan.Gasteiger at gendorf.de From piet at skynet.be Wed Apr 26 15:31:39 2000 From: piet at skynet.be (Pieterjan d'Hertog) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:31:39 +0200 Subject: Recent Mails to the list In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.20000426093554.011c4964@mail.netalia.com> References: <02c401bfaec9$9f727080$4100a8c0@jim> Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20000426152703.00ae2740@pop.skynet.be> >I must disagree this is the place to discuss something that should concern >all members of RIPE, for 11 months of the year this list is dormant with >only the occasional posting from RIPE itself. I agree with you Mark, If there are people that are not interested in receiving that kind of mails, that they unsubscribe from the mailing lists, and that they read the lists on the archives on the RIPE website. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/index.html >Yours >Mark Siegler > >Sales E-mail sales at netalia.com >Tech E-mail tech at netalia.com > >Netalia Internet Ltd. >PO BOX 17364 >London >NW2 2WY >UK > >Sales Freephone 0800 358 0084 >General 020 7431 8811 >Fax 020 7431 6688 >Tech 020 8922 7574 Greetings, ------------------------------------------------------------------ B E L G A C O M S K Y N E T NV/SA Kolonel Bourgstraat 124 Pieterjan d'Hertog B-1140 Brussels Network Engineer PGP Key on request Tel +32(0)2 706.13.11 piet at skynet.be Fax +32(0)2 706.13.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------ These are my opinions -- not to be taken as official Skynet policy From hostmaster at eulink.net Wed Apr 26 15:35:57 2000 From: hostmaster at eulink.net (EULINK Hostmaster) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:35:57 +0200 Subject: Recent Mails to the list References: <02c401bfaec9$9f727080$4100a8c0@jim> <20000426120716.D2836@Space.Net> Message-ID: <03eb01bfaf84$5bae80d0$21c02cd4@SE> Why don't you guys just simply stop discussing about if this discussion is appropriate or not? This would cool down our inboxes and does not straight out the real problem anyways? Thank you. Steffen Ebert +++ EULINK Media GmbH - Ein Unternehmen der EULINK-Gruppe +++ Giessen +++ Wien +++ Boeblingen +++ www.eulink.de +++ www.eulink.at +++ You surf the web - we make the waves! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gert Doering, Netmaster" To: "James Boyce" Cc: "Nigel Titley" ; "Rami Al-Lolah" ; ; Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 12:07 PM Subject: Re: Recent Mails to the list > Hi, > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 04:19:16PM +0100, James Boyce wrote: > > I have to agree with that this is hardly the place for these discussions - > > can those that wish to continue debating this subject, which has no interest > > to our business whatsoever, please form a sub group with a unique email > > address and continue their discussion in private. > > Interesting point. "This subject has no interest to our business > whatsoever". > > Don't you do Internet business, handing out IP addresses to your clients? > > Don't you use RIPE NCC services? > > This discussion is *highly* relevant to those considering themselves > part of the RIPE community - as problems in the RIPE NCC area (long > hostmaster queue, employee fluctuation, etc.) directly affects the way > "we" can do Internet busineess. > > > If you don't think that affects you, maybe you should close down your LIR > and unsubscribe from all the RIPE lists? Then you will automatically > stop getting mails about "those topics". > > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > SpaceNet GmbH Mail: netmaster at Space.Net > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 > > From mdobrev at mail.netplus.bg Wed Apr 26 15:29:03 2000 From: mdobrev at mail.netplus.bg (Mihail Dobrev) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 16:29:03 +0300 (EEST) Subject: Recent Mails to the list In-Reply-To: <20000426120716.D2836@Space.Net> Message-ID: Please STOP THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!